For Reviewers

Preface

The Northern Clinics of Istanbul is an international, open-access, peer-reviewed journal that publishes novel clinical and experimental research conducted in all fields of medicine, case reports and clinical images, invited reviews, editorials, comments and letters to the editor, as well as articles related to topics such as scientific publication and research ethics. The language of the journal is English. The journal is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewed principles. Only unpublished papers that are not under review for publication elsewhere can be submitted.

General Rules

The primary aim of the journal is to publish original articles with high scientific and ethical quality and serve as a good example of medical publications in the medical field.

The Editorial Board of the Northern Clinics of Istanbul and the Publisher adheres to the principles of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the US National Library of Medicine (NLM), the World Medical Association (WMA) and the European Association of Science Editors (EASE). The editor-in-chief has full authority over the editorial and scientific content of the Northern Clinics of Istanbul and the timing of publication of the content.

All articles submitted for publication are strictly reviewed for their originality, methodology, importance, quality, ethical nature and, suitability for the journal.  Northern Clinics of Istanbul uses a well-constructed scheme for the evaluation process. (Please refer to "Instructions to Author" page for more information). The entire submission process for a manuscript is completed online through the self-explanatory online submission system through the following website: https://nci.manuscriptmanager.net The reviewers can also reach their personal pages from the same address with their own passwords.

Manuscripts that comply with the main rules of the journal are sent to at least two external reviewers, and the reviewers are asked for their opinion about the suitability of the paper for publication. The reviewed manuscripts are then re-reviewed by the Editor in Chief and the Editorial Board and a decision of rejection or acceptance is shaped.

If the reviewers have any potential competing interests, they must notify the editor before agreeing to review a submission.

Northern Clinics of Istanbul is committed to the highest standards of research and publication ethics. Editors will act in accordance with the relevant international rules of publication ethics if any ethical misconduct is suspected. The Editorial Board of the Northern Clinics of Istanbul encourages reviewers to comment on possible research or publication misconduct such as unethical research design, duplication, plagiarism, etc. Plagiarism is a serious problem and the most common ethical issue afflicting medical writing. Northern Clinics of Istanbul does not allow any form of plagiarism. In accordance with our journal policy, submitted manuscripts are screened with plagiarism software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text (iThenticate) at least two times (during the evaluation process and after acceptance). 

An approval of research protocols by an ethics committee in accordance with international agreements (“WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (last updated: October 2013, Fortaleza, Brazil)”, “Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals (8th edition, 2011)” and/or “International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals (2012)” is required for all research studies. If the submitted manuscript does not include ethics committee approval, it will be reviewed according to COPE's guideline (Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations). If the study should have ethical approval, authors will be asked to provide ethical approval in order to proceed the review process. When they provide approval, review of the manuscript will continue.

For articles concerning experimental research on humans, a statement should be included that shows informed consent of patients and volunteers was obtained following a detailed explanation of the procedures that they may undergo. Informed consent must also be obtained for case reports. All recognizable photographs of a patient must be accompanied by written permission from the patient for reproduction. Procedures that were performed to eliminate any pain, harm and distress in subjects/animals should clearly be stated. The authors should clearly state their compliance with internationally accepted guidelines and the guidelines issued by the relevant authority of their country. The journal requests a copy of the Ethics Committee Approval received from the relevant authority.

Northern Clinics of Istanbul wants reviewers to treat the manuscripts in confidence. Reviewers who seek assistance from a trainee or colleague in the performance of a review should acknowledge these individuals' contributions in the written comments submitted to the editor. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers must request permission from the journal prior to using AI technology to facilitate their review. The material of the manuscripts must not be used or shared in any way until they have been published. Northern Clinics of Istanbul follows the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct. Please refer to COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers for "Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere" and "Expectations from reviewers”.

Northern Clinics of Istanbul uses bibliographic databases and also accepts authors' suggestions to find new reviewers. The journal thanks to the reviewers and publishes the reviewer list every year in the last issue and on the website after each issue. 

If the reviewers need, they can go through the "Instructions to Authors". They can also use the questions below, when reviewing the manuscripts:

1. Please state any conflict(s) of interest that you have in relation to the review of this manuscript (state "none" if this is not applicable).
2. Do you suspect any research or publication misconduct? If yes, please indicate in detail.
3. Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?
4. Is the title of the article appropriate?
5. Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
6. Is the problem significant and concisely stated?
7. Are the methods described comprehensively?
8. Is the results section clear and satisfactory?
9. Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
10. Is adequate reference made to other work in the field and is it current?
11. Is the language acceptable?
12. Is the appropriate terminology used in the text?
13. Are the data presented in the tables and/or figures sufficient? 
14. Is it necessary to shorten the article?

Requirements for Reviewers

All interested reviewers must meet the requirements depicted below for NCI.
The interested reviewer must be an author to least 15 original research publications and these publications should be listed on the applicant’s CV. Articles pending a final publishing decision should also be included.
The reviewer is expected to review 1 to 4 at least reviews per calendar year.

Reviewing Process

The reviewer is invited to review a manuscript via an invitation e-mail. The proposed timeframe for completion of the review (2 or 3 weeks) and log-in information for the electronic submission system are provided.

Reviewer must inform the editorial board if they will review the suggested manuscript or not by logging in to the submission system within 5 days after the date of the e-mail by selecting one of the two options in the system (“I accept” or “I decline”). After 5 days the opportunity to review the manuscript is closed. 

The reviewer must complete the assigned review within the review period provided in the invitation e-mail (2 or 3 weeks, according to the type of manuscript).

In the event of unforeseen circumstances that prevent completion of the review within the allotted time, the committee member is asked to contact the journal editor immediately so that arrangements can be made for the review to be completed in a timely fashion.