Review Process

Peer-Review Process for Authors

Turkish Journal of Pediatrics employs a double-blind peer review system, which ensures that the identities of both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to one another. Each manuscript undergoes a thorough evaluation process, typically involving at least two external reviewers and editors from the Journal.

The following is an outline of the peer review process:

  1. The submitted manuscript is first reviewed by the editor-in-chief, who determines its suitability for further evaluation. A section editor is assigned to each manuscript deemed suitable for review. Preliminary review by the editor-in-chief includes adherence to the Journal's focus and scope, publication quality, language quality, ethical standards, and conflict of interest.
  2. Manuscripts that do not qualify for peer review, such as those that lack scientific merit, originality, or relevance to the target audience, may not be reviewed further.
  3. If the editor-in-chief and/or a section editor deem the manuscript suitable for evaluation, it is then sent to at least two independent reviewers for double-blinded peer review.
  4. The section editor carefully reviews the evaluations provided by the reviewers and then makes a recommendation to the editor-in-chief.
  5. Ultimately, the final decision to accept or reject an article rests with the editor-in-chief.

Appeals and Complaints

The Journal follows Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals, and complaints about the peer review process. Appeals to editorial decisions are welcomed. However, authors must present strong evidence, additional information, and data in the appeal letter. Authors can send an appeal letter to editorial office e-mail address [email protected]. Appeal letters should include (if available)

  • the reasons for the appeal
  • details of the technical errors,
  • reasons of disagreements and disputes,
  • evidence regarding conflict of interest,
  • additional or new resources, evidence, information, and data

The editors will respond to the request within one month. Editors may reject or accept the manuscript, request a revision, or suggest initiating an additional review process. All decisions on appeals are final. For more information about the policy on appeals and complaints, please contact the editorial office.

Manuscript Withdrawal

Manuscripts that have been sent for peer review cannot be withdrawn. However, if further delays occur in the peer-review process, authors are entitled to withdraw their manuscripts. For manuscripts that have not yet begun the peer review process, the corresponding author may request withdrawal by sending an email to [email protected].

Peer-Review Process for Editors and Reviewers

Technical check is carried out by the editorial office including:

  • Similarity checks via Turnitin or iThenticate
  • Format requirements
  • Whether all the necessary information is provided or not
  • Completion of files, forms, documents, statements

Preliminary review by the editor-in-chief including adherence to:

  • Journal's aim, focus, and scope
  • Publication quality
  • Language quality
  • Ethical standards
  • Conflict of interest

Editor-in-chief either rejects the manuscript or forwards it to section editors.

Reviews by the section editors include:

  • Objective errors
  • Language errors (grammar and spelling rules, and the related scientific literature)
  • Research quality
  • Compliance with ethical considerations and standards for the research.

Section editors either reject the manuscript or forward it to peer-reviewers.

Review process by peer-reviewers includes:

  • Declaration of competing interests (If there is conflict of interests, the editorial office will evaluate the relationship and if deemed permissible, reviewers will be assigned. The editorial board will follow the COPE’s guideline on conflict of interests.)
  • Review of the manuscript thoroughly
  • Quality evaluations (Research question, hypothesis, theoretical background and relevance to the scientific literature, methodology, scientific standards, language and presentation, major strengths and weaknesses.)
  • Providing feedback (suggestions of changes to improve the study or the presentation of the results)
  • Making one of four recommendations that are “accept for publication”, “minor revision”, “major revision” or “reject”.
  • Drafting a review report
    • Supporting the points made in the comments with literature citations if appropriate
    • Referring to the correct page and line number, and numbering the comments to make the revision easier for the authors and the reviewer
  • Providing confidential comments to the editor-in-chief, given separately from the comments to the authors
  • The reviewers are asked not to mention their “final recommendation” in their comments to the authors, but they can send this to the editor separately.

Possible questions asked by the reviewers during the evaluation process may include:


  • Is it an accurate reflection of the study?
  • Is the length appropriate?
  • Have authors used abbreviations which may make understanding the title difficult?


  • Does it give a reasonable summary of what was done?
  • If a quantitative study, does it contain data?
  • Does it follow the correct format (which should be structured for our journal)?


  • Is the background information introduced?
  • Does it adequately justify why the study was done?
  • Is the rationale for the study clearly stated?
  • Is the hypothesis clearly stated?


  • Are all methods used for data collection adequately presented and are they appropriate?
  • Are the methods reproducible?
  • Are there enough numbers of participants to draw a clear conclusion and was this calculated appropriately?
  • Are appropriate controls used?
  • Are the statistics appropriate/adequate?
  • Was there appropriate IRB/ethics committee review?
  • If human subjects were involved, was informed consent obtained?


  • Are the data adequately presented, is everything stated in the methods reported?
  • Are any data presented that were not mentioned in the methods?
  • Do the numbers in the tables add up and do they match what is in the text?
  • Is there unnecessary duplication between the text and tables/ figures?
  • Are the tables and figures adequate and/or needed?
  • Are tables/figures labelled correctly?


  • Is the opening paragraph appropriate?
  • Is there adequate discussion of the relevant literature in the light of their results?
  • Is there inappropriate speculation?
  • Are the limitations acknowledged?
  • Is a conclusion paragraph given?

Overall evaluation

  • Is the topic related to the scope of the journal?
  • Is the topic timely and significant?
  • Is the English language of the manuscript at an acceptable level?
  • Are the references up to date?

Reviewing a revised manuscript

  • Were the authors responsive to your suggestions?
  • Are the revisions acceptable?
  • Did the authors explain why a suggestion was not acted upon?

Final Decision for Publication

  • Once the authors complete revisions and/or the final version of the manuscript, the section editors forward their recommendation for publication to the editor-in-chief. There may be more than one round of peer review before a final decision is made.
  • The editor-in-chief evaluates the recommendations of the section editors and makes a final decision and shares this decision with the authors. A manuscript can be either accepted for publication or rejected.
  • If the manuscript is accepted, production team will prepare the manuscript for publication.