Reviewer Guidelines

All submissions to Turkish Endodontic Journal are first reviewed for completeness and only then sent to be assessed by the editorial board who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Editorial team members will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the editors themself may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript. Peer reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. It is based on many factors, including expertise, conflict of interest and previous performance. Speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning and collegiality are highly desirable. Where an editorial board member is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review.

Editor(s) are expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts. Peer review reports could be in English or Turkish and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a rationale for the recommendations. When making a decision based on one report, editor(s) are expected to only do so if the peer review report meets the required standards. In the rare, exceptional, occasions when two independent peer reviewers cannot be secured, the Editor may act as a second reviewer or make a decision using only one report. Potential peer reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflict of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.

Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE’s ethical guidelines for peer-reviewers which can be found at the following link: https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-cope.pdf

Reviewers are asked to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a delay, they should inform the editorial board to keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.