Reviewer Process
Journal of Pediatric Infection’s aim is to publish high quality scientific articles in the field of pediatric health and diseases. Review, original research, editor’s view, letter to the editor, case reports and educational scientific articles (what is your diagnosis?, routines, question-answer, clinical clues, news from the world literature) are also being accepted. It is an independent, unprejudiced journal that gets published both in Turkish and English, and relies on peer-review principles.
Articles get evaluated by at least two reviewers and the editorial board has the right to accept, request correction or reject the article. Reviewers get selected amongst experienced independent specialists who have works published in international literature.
Journal of Pediatric Infection is indexed by Web of Sciences, Emerging Sources Citation Index, CINAHL, Türkiye Atıf Dizini and TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Türk Tıp Dizini.
Key questions for the reviewers:
- Does the title reflect the content of the article?
- Are the keywords appropiate?
- Does the abstract summarize the article? Can it be understood without reading the article? Are there any contradictions between the abstract and the article?
- Is the work based on the medical literature research given in the introduction section? Is the aim of the study described? Are there any hypothesis or research questions?
- Are the informed consent of the authors and the ethics committee approval given in the materials and methods section?
- Is there a clear explanation of the methods that enable the results to be produced independently?
- Does the discussion start with the most important results? Do the results get compared to the related literature? Are the limitations and results clear enough? Are all the references in correct format?
Peer Review Workflow
Comprehensive, impartial, and evidence-based feedback from reviewers is crucial for rendering fair decisions regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of submissions to the Journal of Pediatric Infection. All research and review articles undergo a double-blind peer-review process, with selected specialists, well-versed in the subject matter and possessing adequate reviewer skills.
The objective of the review process is to assess the scientific quality, novelty, implications of submissions, validate format and references, and provide commentary on all aspects related to research and publication ethics.
Typically, our responsible editors appoint a minimum of 2 external reviewers for commenting on an average submission. The Editor-in-Chief, along with Associate Editors, arrives at a decision based on a comprehensive evaluation of reviewer comments and recommendations regarding the suitability of submissions for publication.
Following the initial internal review, manuscripts not within the scope of the journal or not suitable for peer review, according to non-compliance with the editorial policy, may be rejected by the editor.
Acceptance or Rejection of Invitations
Reviewer invitations are dispatched to selected experts through the online submission system. Potential reviewers receive emails with links to accept or decline the invitations. If they agree to review, they notify the editors within five (5) days. In the absence of a response within this timeframe, alternative experts may be assigned.
Invited peers who find themselves busy, engaged with other assignments, or consider the submission's topic outside their expertise are encouraged to decline the invitation promptly by clicking a related link upon receiving the email.
Disclosure
Reviewers are required to disclose any potential financial or nonfinancial conflicts of interest that may bias their professional comments and recommendations. Further information about conflicts of interest can be found at http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/.
Peer Review Timeline
Reviewers are requested to submit their comments within twenty-one (21) days after accepting the assignment. If an extension of the date is needed or if they are unable to complete the review, timely notification to the editorial office is highly appreciated.
All reviewer comments must be submitted through the online editorial system. Email submissions to the editorial office are discouraged, although technical editors can be contacted for assistance in case of difficulties with the submission system.
Confidentiality
Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding each manuscript they are assigned to comment on and should not disclose related information to anyone.
Reviewers should refrain from citing the work under review and avoid using the information to advance their own research before publication.
Reviewers remain anonymous throughout the peer review and publication of the article.
Tips for Reviewers
A good review has two goals: 1. To assist handling editors in making a decision about the manuscript. 2. To advise authors on how to correct, revise, and improve their work.
Reviewers should bear in mind that they are allies of the authors, aiming to promote effective and accurate scientific communication. They should be:
Constructive: Rather than simply stating a section needs work, provide details about potential alterations to improve the section or manuscript.
Clear: While providing detailed comments, be precise about expectations from the authors.
Positive: Authors seek helpful suggestions, appreciating the work done, and aiming to minimize weaknesses. Polite language is encouraged, while personal insults and harsh tones are unacceptable.
Identify Strengths: It is crucial to let the author know what should not be changed, saving time in the revision process.
Reviewers should refrain from listing recommendations on suitability for publication in comments conveyed to authors.
Comments to Editors
Reviewers are required to send comments to the Associate Editor when reviewing a manuscript. Any concerns about the manuscript or professional interest in the field should be confidentially communicated to the Editors.
Decisions on Submissions
Revisions
After an author submits a revision, the Editor will ask the reviewer(s) from the previous round to evaluate the revised submission. If a reviewer requests revisions, their commitment to act as reviewers for consecutive rounds of the peer review is expected.
Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on a submission. The Scientific Editor utilizes reviewer comments and decisions, acceptance criteria, and their own editorial assessment of a paper to make the final decision.