Information for Reviewers

1. Peer Review Policy & Ethics

The Van Medical Journal adheres to a rigorous double-blind peer review process. To maintain the integrity of this process, reviewers must adhere to the following principles:

• Confidentiality: The manuscript is a privileged document. Do not discuss it with others or share it without the Editor's permission.
• [IMPORTANT] No AI Usage: Uploading the manuscript (or parts of it) to Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, LLMs) for summarization or review is strictly prohibited due to data privacy and copyright violations.
• Conflict of Interest: If you have a competing interest (financial, professional, or personal) with the authors or the subject matter, you must decline the review immediately.
• Timeliness: Reviews should typically be completed within 15 days. If you require an extension, please notify the Editorial Office promptly.

2. Guide for Reviewing a Manuscript

Please focus on the scientific quality, originality, and clarity of the manuscript. Do not worry about minor copy-editing (typos), as the editorial team will handle this. Use the following checklist to guide your evaluation:

Title and Abstract

• Does the title accurately reflect the content of the study?
• Is the abstract a self-contained summary? Does it include the objective, methods, key results, and conclusion?
• Clinical Trials: Is the trial registration number included?

Introduction

• Is the research question or hypothesis clearly stated?
• Is the gap in current knowledge identified?
• Are the references relevant and up-to-date?

Materials and Methods

• Reproducibility: Is the methodology described in sufficient detail for another researcher to replicate the study?
• Ethics: Is the Ethics Committee approval (with date and number) clearly stated? Is informed consent confirmed?
• Statistics: Are the statistical methods appropriate? Is the sample size justification (power analysis) provided?

Results

• Are the findings presented clearly and logically?
• Do the tables and figures add value, or do they repeat the text?
• Are the results consistent with the methods described?

Discussion and Conclusion

• Interpretation: Does the discussion interpret the results rather than just repeating them?
• Context: Are the results compared with existing literature?
• Limitations: Has the author frankly discussed the limitations of the study?
• Conclusion: Is the conclusion supported by the data presented?

3. Writing the Review Report

When submitting your review via the online system, please structure your comments constructively:

1. Summary: A brief paragraph summarizing your understanding of the study.
2. Major Comments: Critical flaws in methodology, missing data, or ethical concerns that effectively prevent publication in its current state.
3. Minor Comments: Suggestions for clarifying text, improving figures, or adding missing references.
4. Recommendation:
• Accept: No changes needed.
• Minor Revision: Small changes required.
• Major Revision: Significant rewriting or re-analysis required.
• Reject: Serious flaws or lack of novelty.