Reviewer Guideline

Turkish Journal of Traumatic Stress is a peer-reviewed, open-access, quarterly journal that publishes experimental and clinical research manuscripts in the fields of psychiatry, psychological trauma, childhood trauma, mental health, behavioral sciences, neuroscience, and related fields . The journal classifies the received manuscripts as follows:

-Research article
-Brief report
-Case report
-Guest editorial
-Letter to the editor

Turkish Journal of Traumatic Stress is publishing original scientific manuscripts with highest ethical and scientific standards. Turkish Journal of Traumatic Stress takes into consideration the COPE guidelines and flow charts for peer review process (https://publicationethics.org/peerreview).

The Peer - Review System

The journal utilizes a double-blind peer review process. Only manuscripts that have been approved by all listed authors and have not been previously published or submitted elsewhere are accepted for consideration. Manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system, and reviewers can access their assignments through the reviewer login on the journal's website (https://traumaj.com/index.php/pub). Manuscripts not requiring review receive a response within approximately 5 days, while reviewed submissions have a response time of up to 4 weeks. Accepted manuscripts proceed to online publication within 10 weeks. The editor-in-chief holds responsibility for the journal's editorial and scientific content, as well as for publication timing.

Submitted manuscripts undergo an initial check and are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. Following this check, eligible manuscripts are evaluated by the editor-in-chief for originality, methodology, relevance of the topic, and alignment with the journal's scope. Manuscripts deemed suitable for publication proceed to an unbiased, double-blind peer review conducted by associate editors. Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent experts in the field, who provide detailed and constructive feedback to aid both editorial decisions and manuscript improvements. Authors make requested revisions through the online submission system, after which the associate editor submits the original, revised manuscripts and reviewers’ feedback along with their recommendations to the editor-in-chief.

Reviewers are encouraged to report any potential research or publication misconduct, such as unethical study designs, duplication, or plagiarism. If reviewers have any conflicts of interest, they must inform the editor prior to agreeing to the review. Reviewers who consult a trainee or colleague during their review process should acknowledge these individuals in the comments provided to the editor. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript, which prohibits uploading it to software or other AI technologies without guaranteed confidentiality. Reviewers wishing to use AI tools to assist with the review must first obtain permission from the journal.

Guidelines for conducting a review

A reviewer should take the following points into account when deciding to accept, decline, start, or report on a review:

  • Upon receiving a review invitation, decide promptly and respond without delay.

  • Ensure that the manuscript falls within your area of expertise; if it does not, kindly decline the invitation.

  • If there is any potential conflict of interest, inform the editor immediately.

  • For any ethical concerns, such as plagiarism or fraud, notify the editor and consult the guidelines on the ICMJE, WAME, and COPE websites.

  • Remember that all materials are confidential. Do not share the manuscript or any review details with anyone unless expressly permitted by the editor.

  • Provide an objective, constructive summary of your overall opinion, comments, and any observed deficiencies, avoiding personal remarks or unnecessary details.

  • Specify whether your comments and judgments are based on your own opinion or supported by the data.

  • Offer a clear recommendation, choosing one of three options: rejection, acceptance without revision, or revision.

  • Clearly explain your reasoning if you recommend rejection, as well as the specific changes required for a minor or major revision.

Checklist

When reviewing a manuscript, consider the following aspects:

  • Any potential conflicts of interest that may affect your objectivity.

  • Possible research or publication misconduct.

  • Alignment with the journal’s standards.

  • Clarity and accuracy of the title and abstract.

  • Scientific structure, including a clearly stated problem, method, results, and conclusions.

  • Novelty and significance of the information presented.

  • Quality and clarity of language.

  • Appropriateness of terminology.

  • Adequacy and relevance of references.

  • Sufficient quality and quantity of figures and tables.

  • The article’s priority for publication