E-ISSN: 2587-0351 | ISSN: 1300-2694
Volume : 30 Issue : 3 Year : 2023

The average processing time for accepted or rejected articles in the last three months is 53 days.

Instructions For Reviwers

The aim of the peer-review process is to measure the scientific value of the study while evaluating its suitability for publication in Van Medical Journal. Each manuscript has been pre-reviewed by the editors before being submitted for peer-review. The purpose of the evaluation process is not only to evaluate current work, but also to help authors improve their current and future work.
Be courteous, honest, professional and constructive. If authors are given the opportunity to revise, constructive feedback is an integral part of improving the article.
Read the text at least once before starting your review.
Check that the resources are current and relevant. This may include checking any source randomly selected from the range.
Evaluate statistical analysis as best you can.
Avoid long paragraphs as it is difficult for authors to respond to multiple points in a single paragraph.
Do not make a decision before reading the text. Keep an open mind and evaluate the article on its merits.
Do not make personal comments about the identity of the authors, their qualifications, or their ability to carry out the research in question.
Do not focus on minor grammatical errors. These will be edited during the proof process.
Review each section individually for feedback. How each section should be evaluated is described below.

Article Sections

Title: Does the title of the article accurately reflect the content? The title should not contain off-topic information such as the type of study or methodology used. It should also not be the result of study.

Abstract: Is the summary informative? The summary is the first thing most people read. Summary; it should be clear and concise so that only those reading the summary can understand the main findings of the study.

  1. Introduction: Does this section concisely explain the rationale for the study and the hypothesis tested?
  2. Mayerials and Methods: Are the methods clearly defined?
  3. Results: Have all relevant results been included? Are primary/secondary results presented?
  4. Conclusions: Are the results supported by the data?
  5. Is the information in the summary consistent with the main text of the article?
  6. A list of keywords should be given after the abstract. Are the keywords complete and appropriate? Are the keywords from the 2022 Medical Subject Headings?
Introduction: Explains why the study was done and briefly summarizes what is known about the subject and refers to related studies. The research question(s) the research is trying to answer or the hypothesis being tested should be specific and clearly stated.
Is the background information sufficient to introduce the research topic?
Are specific study objectives or hypotheses clearly stated?
Is the text clear and precise?

Materials and Methods: How was the research conducted? This section should provide enough detail so that a reader can prove validity and other researchers can replicate it. It should clearly state how subjects were identified or recruited, inclusion/exclusion criteria, patient population studied, IRB/Ethics Committee statement, data collected, statistical tests, and statistical significance criteria.
Randomized controlled trials should include the method of randomization, blinding, and how to screen.
Comparative studies should clearly state the equipment used (make, model), the number of measurements, and how the study was conducted.
Surveys should describe how the survey was developed, what strategies were used to validate it, and the procedures used to test or modify it.
Are there clear, valid explanations of how the measured and calculated values ??are obtained?
Is a flowchart included that clearly describes the number of patients screened, the reasons for exclusion of individuals, and the number of subjects allocated to different treatment groups?
Are the measurement procedures appropriate to the aims or hypotheses of the study?
Is there enough detail to critique validity and for readers to repeat the study?
Was the appropriate statistical method used for this study design?
Are the texts in this section clear and precise?

Results: It should include the findings of the study, including the statistical analysis. This section should include the primary and secondary results of the study, but not interpretations of the data. Data presented in tables or figures can be summarized in the text, but should not appear in both locations.
Is there complete data for each variable described in the Methods section?
Are data clearly presented?
Are the data irrelevant to the aims or hypotheses of the study?
Are the tables and figures clear and relevant to the research?
Does the text avoid presenting the same data as tables or figures?
Does the episode flow well with primary analyzes first, followed by secondary or post-hoc analyses?
Are the summary data and P values ??properly rounded?
Is the text clear and precise?

Discussion: In this section, the authors describe the results of the study. The first paragraph should summarize the main findings of the study. The following paragraphs often contain supporting evidence from previously published literature as well as conflicting findings from other researchers.
Is there an explanation for how the results handle the problem statement or hypotheses?
Are the theoretical and practical aspects of the results discussed?
Do you agree with the interpretation of the results?
Does this study have a comparison with previously published studies?
Are the references sufficient?
Limitations should be clearly stated in a separate paragraph.
Do authors avoid emphasizing the importance of their work?
Are the texts in this section clear and precise?

Conclusion(s): Authors should clearly state the conclusions to be drawn from the study.
Are methods and findings (data) presented in this section? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lesson to be learned from the study clear?
Are the texts in this section clear and precise?

References: These should be up-to-date and relevant to the study question, methods used, results and discussion, both in number and content.
Editors will ask authors to format references in journal style.

Tables and Figures: These should be used to clarify and illustrate results, not to repeat data provided in the text. They should be simple, clear and descriptive. Summary data and p-values ??should be rounded appropriately.

Make your recommendation: Your conclusion from all your reviews above

Accept – The article has no issues and is ready for publication. Note that it is unusual to suggest acceptance without a review on the first submission.
Minor Revision – The article has a few minor issues but is largely editable.
Major Revision – The paper has some major issues, but still acceptable if the authors can adequately address the concerns of the reviewers.
Reject – The article means there are major methodological flaws, ethical concerns, and lacks originality, not contributing to the body of knowledge. Rejection means the article cannot be made acceptable regardless of revision

Quick Search

LookUs & Online Makale