Peer Review Policy and Editorial Process

The Ulutas Medical Journal uses double-blind peer review: reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

1. Technical check: The editorial office checks each submission for completeness, adherence to the Instructions for Authors, ethics approval and consent statements, and similarity using iThenticate.
2. Editorial screening: The Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor assesses scope, originality and scientific quality. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage without external review (desk rejection), usually within 14 days.
3. External peer review: Manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise who have no conflict of interest with the authors. Reviewers are asked to return their reports within 21 days.
4. Decision: Based on the reviewers' reports, the handling editor makes one of the following decisions: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Where reviewers disagree, an additional reviewer may be invited. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers.
5. Final responsibility: The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision on all published content.

Preparing a blinded manuscript: Submit the title page (with all author details) and the blinded manuscript (with no author names, affiliations, acknowledgements or other identifying information) as two separate files. Refer to your own previous work in the third person and anonymise file properties.

Manuscripts by editors: Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors or editorial board members are handled by another editor with no conflict of interest and undergo the same independent peer review. The submitting editor has no access to the review process.

Appeals: Authors may appeal a decision by emailing the editorial office with a detailed justification within 30 days. Appeals are reviewed by an editor not involved in the original decision.

Publication dates: Each article displays its received, accepted and published dates.

Reviewer guidance: Reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential, declare any conflicts of interest, and must not upload manuscripts to generative AI tools. Case reports are additionally assessed for clinical novelty or educational value, accuracy of diagnosis and management, compliance with the CARE guidelines, and confirmation of patient consent and anonymisation.