Peer Review Policy

Editors evaluate manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief, or political philosophy of the authors. They provide a fair double-blind peer-review of the submitted articles for publication. They ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept confidential before publishing.

Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. They should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed. Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors, and reviewers. Only she/he has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for the final decision for the publication of the manuscripts in The Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation.

Reviewers should identify the relevant published work that the authors have not cited. They must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept confidential and report to the Editor-in-Chief if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author's side.

A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor-in-Chief and excuse herself/himself from the review process.

The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other people. The reviewers are not allowed to have copies of the manuscripts for personal use and cannot share manuscripts with others. Unless the authors and editor permit, the reviews of referees cannot be published or disclosed. The anonymity of the referees is essential. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point. Please review the COPE publication ethics guidelines by clicking here.

The manuscript submission and article review processes typically begin with an author registering and submitting their work to the journal. Afterward, an administrator carefully reviews the submission and initiates the evaluation process by assigning or inviting the appropriate individuals to participate. At this stage, the editor-in-chief plays a crucial role by selecting a sub-editor with the relevant expertise to oversee the review process. The editor then proceeds to identify suitable reviewers and extends invitations to them. In some cases, if the ideal reviewer still needs to be listed in the database, the editor may add them manually. Once the reviewers receive the manuscript, they thoroughly assess its content and provide their evaluation to the editor. After the evaluation by the reviewers, the articles are evaluated by the statistical editor. Based on the recommendations from other editors and external reviews, the editor-in-chief decides on the manuscript.