Peer-Review Process

Table of Contents

  • Overview

  • Peer Review Model

  • Peer-Review Timeline

  • Reviewer Assignment

  • Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Responsibilities of Authors

  • Reviewer Timeline

  • Editorial Decisions

  • Editorial Independence and Responsibilities

  • Complaints and Appeals

  • Publication Ethics and Misconduct

  • Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

  • Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

  • Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

  • Retraction Policy

  • After Acceptance

  • Preprint Policy

  • Reviewer Recognition

  • Expression of Concern

Overview

Hyrcanian Journal of Clinical Medicine operates a rigorous, fair, and confidential peer-review process to ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical conduct, and clinical relevance.

The journal uses a structured editorial and peer-review procedure designed to promote impartial evaluation, transparency, confidentiality, and integrity throughout the publication process. The journal's editorial practices are informed by the recommendations and guidance of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and accepted international standards of scholarly publishing.

All editorial decisions are based on the scientific and academic merits of the submitted manuscript and are not influenced by the authors' nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political views, institutional affiliation, seniority, or personal relationships.

Peer Review Model

Hyrcanian Journal of Clinical Medicine uses a double-anonymized (double-blind) peer-review model.

Under this model, the identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during the review process. Authors are therefore expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that supports anonymized review, including removing identifying information from the main manuscript where appropriate.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary, including when manuscripts are multidisciplinary, methodologically complex, or when reviewer assessments substantially conflict.

Peer review is intended to provide an independent assessment of the manuscript's scientific quality. It does not transfer responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, or ethical conduct of the work from the authors to the reviewers.

Peer-Review Timeline

The journal aims to provide an initial editorial decision within approximately 4–8 weeks after completion of the initial editorial screening and assignment of appropriate reviewers.

The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional reviewers, revision requirements, and other editorial circumstances.

Authors may contact the editorial office through the journal's submission system to request an update when a manuscript has remained in review beyond the expected processing period.

Reviewer Assignment

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated Handling Editor according to the subject, methodology, and scope of the manuscript.

Reviewer selection may consider:

  • Relevant academic and professional expertise.

  • Appropriate publication or research experience in the subject area.

  • Professional identity that can be reasonably verified.

  • Independence from the authors.

  • Absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

  • Availability to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Reviewers should not be selected when they have relationships or circumstances that could reasonably compromise the impartiality of their evaluation. This includes, where applicable, current institutional affiliation with an author, recent close collaboration, supervisory relationships, significant professional competition, financial interests, or other relevant conflicts.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission. Suggested reviewers must be appropriately qualified and independent. The final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the editorial team.

Providing false, fabricated, or misleading reviewer identities or contact information is considered a serious breach of publication ethics and may result in rejection of the manuscript and further investigation.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts, supplementary materials, data, and information obtained during the review process as confidential. Manuscripts must not be shared, discussed publicly, or used for personal or professional advantage.

Objectivity

Reviews should be objective, constructive, respectful, and supported by clear scientific reasoning. Personal criticism of authors is not appropriate.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their evaluation. When a relevant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation or immediately notify the editorial office.

Expertise

Reviewers should accept an assignment only when they have sufficient expertise to provide a meaningful assessment of the manuscript. If they determine that they are not suitably qualified after accepting the invitation, they should promptly notify the editorial office.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to review invitations and to submit their evaluations within the agreed timeframe. When additional time is required, the reviewer should contact the editorial office as early as possible.

Appropriate Use of Information

Reviewers must not use unpublished information, ideas, methods, data, or results obtained through peer review for their own research or other purposes before publication.

Reviewer Assistance

Reviewers must not transfer a peer-review assignment to another person without prior permission from the editorial office. When an editor authorizes assistance from a colleague or trainee, the contribution should be appropriately acknowledged in the journal's internal records.

Responsibilities of Authors

Originality

Authors must ensure that the submitted manuscript is original and that all sources, ideas, data, quotations, and other materials derived from previous work are appropriately acknowledged and cited.

Accuracy and Integrity of Data

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the data and information reported in their manuscript. Fabrication, falsification, inappropriate manipulation, or deliberate misrepresentation of data is unacceptable.

Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal. Substantial overlap with previously published or submitted work must be disclosed to the editorial office.

Authorship

All listed authors must meet appropriate authorship criteria and must have made a substantive contribution to the work. All authors should participate in the review and approval of the final manuscript and agree to be accountable for their contributions and the integrity of the work as a whole.

Authorship should be determined by the authors before or during manuscript preparation. The journal does not normally arbitrate disputes among authors; unresolved authorship disputes may be referred to the relevant institution(s) for investigation.

Ethical Approval and Research Integrity

Where applicable, authors must provide appropriate information regarding ethics committee approval, informed consent, clinical trial registration, animal welfare, and other ethical requirements relevant to the research.

Conflict of Interest

Authors must disclose financial and non-financial relationships or activities that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the work.

Funding

Authors should disclose sources of financial or material support for the reported work and describe the role of the funding source, where applicable.

Reporting Errors

Authors should promptly inform the editorial office if they identify a substantial error or inaccuracy in a submitted or published article and should cooperate with the journal in correcting the scientific record when necessary.

Reviewer Timeline

Reviewers are normally given 14 days to complete a review.

Extensions may be granted when requested in advance and when circumstances permit. The journal may send reminders to reviewers to maintain reasonable processing times.

When a reviewer cannot complete a review within the requested period, the editorial office may seek an extension or invite another qualified reviewer.

Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately assigned Handling Editor after considering the peer-review reports, the scientific and methodological quality of the manuscript, ethical considerations, and the journal's editorial scope and standards.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

A manuscript may also be rejected without external peer review when it is outside the journal's scope, does not meet essential submission requirements, presents serious methodological or ethical concerns, or does not meet the journal's minimum editorial standards.

When reviewer recommendations conflict substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent review, request clarification, consult another editorial board member, or make an editorial decision based on the available evidence and reviewer comments.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editors.

Editorial Independence and Responsibilities

Fair and Impartial Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on academic and scientific considerations and are made without discrimination or inappropriate influence based on personal, institutional, financial, political, religious, or other non-academic considerations.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and other information related to the editorial process.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and editorial staff must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from handling manuscripts when their relationships or activities could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, impartiality.

Protection of Unpublished Information

Editors and editorial staff must not use unpublished information obtained through the editorial process for personal research, professional advantage, or other purposes without appropriate authorization.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently according to the journal's academic and ethical standards. The publisher and other non-editorial parties must not improperly influence individual editorial decisions.

Editorial Board Submissions

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Editorial Board members, or other individuals directly involved in editorial decision-making must be handled independently by another qualified editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

The involved editor must be excluded from reviewer selection, editorial assessment, decision-making, and other stages that could create a conflict.

Journal Metrics and Citations

Editors must not manipulate journal metrics or publication statistics by requesting unnecessary citations to the journal, its editors, editorial board members, or specific individuals. Any citation recommendation must be based on a valid scholarly reason and relevance to the manuscript.

Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant procedural error, factual misunderstanding, inappropriate conflict of interest, demonstrable reviewer bias, or other substantial issue materially affected the decision.

An appeal should be submitted through the journal's editorial system or official editorial communication channel and should provide a clear, point-by-point explanation addressing the relevant reviewer or editorial comments.

Appeals are not intended to provide an opportunity to submit substantially revised arguments in response to a valid editorial decision merely because the authors disagree with the scientific judgment of the reviewers or editors.

The journal normally permits one formal appeal per manuscript. Appeals will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision, where appropriate.

The outcome of an appeal is final within the journal.

Complaints

Complaints concerning editorial procedures, peer review, publication ethics, or possible misconduct will be handled confidentially by the responsible editor or an appropriately designated member of the editorial team.

Complaints will be assessed fairly and, where necessary, investigated according to the relevant journal policies and applicable COPE guidance.

Where a concern cannot be appropriately resolved through the journal's internal procedures, the complainant may seek further guidance from the relevant institutional or professional body, or from COPE where applicable.

Publication Ethics and Misconduct

Hyrcanian Journal of Clinical Medicine is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record and expects authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff to comply with established standards of publication and research ethics.

Potential misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

  • Fabrication of data or results.

  • Falsification or inappropriate manipulation of research materials, data, images, or results.

  • Plagiarism.

  • Duplicate or redundant publication.

  • Undisclosed substantial overlap with previous publications.

  • Manipulation or interference with the peer-review process.

  • Fabricated reviewer identities or fraudulent reviewer information.

  • Unethical research or lack of required ethical approval.

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest where disclosure is required.

  • Authorship or contributorship misconduct.

Honest errors, legitimate scientific disagreement, and differences in interpretation do not by themselves constitute research misconduct.

When a potential ethical problem is identified, the journal may request explanations or supporting documentation from the authors, reviewers, institutions, or other relevant parties and may take appropriate editorial action in accordance with applicable ethical guidance.

Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

All submitted manuscripts may be screened for plagiarism, duplicate publication, and inappropriate text overlap as part of the editorial assessment.

The journal may use appropriate similarity-detection and plagiarism-screening tools available to the editorial office.

A similarity report is an aid to editorial assessment and does not by itself establish plagiarism. The editorial team evaluates the nature, extent, location, and context of any identified overlap.

Where plagiarism or substantial inappropriate overlap is confirmed, the manuscript may be rejected and the matter may be investigated according to the journal's publication ethics procedures.

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All participants in the publication process must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and related information.

Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and must not participate in the handling or evaluation of a manuscript when such conflicts could compromise impartiality.

Conflicts of interest may be financial or non-financial and may include professional, personal, academic, institutional, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing judgment.

Disclosure of a conflict does not necessarily mean that a manuscript cannot be considered for publication. The journal will determine appropriate measures to manage the conflict and preserve the integrity of the editorial process.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and unpublished information during peer review.

Reviewers must not upload or otherwise disclose confidential manuscript content to external artificial intelligence systems or other services when confidentiality cannot be assured.

Use of artificial intelligence tools in peer review is permitted only where consistent with the journal's instructions, applicable confidentiality requirements, and any permission required from the editorial office.

AI tools must not replace the reviewer's own professional and scientific judgment. Reviewers remain responsible for the content and conclusions of their submitted review.

Retraction Policy

Hyrcanian Journal of Clinical Medicine is committed to preserving the integrity and reliability of the published scholarly record.

A published article may be considered for retraction when there is clear evidence that its findings are unreliable because of major error, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, serious ethical violations, unauthorized use of material or data, compromised peer review, substantial undisclosed competing interests affecting the work, or other circumstances that materially undermine the reliability of the publication.

Retractions are issued through a clearly identified and freely accessible retraction notice linked to the original article. The notice will state the reason for the retraction and identify the affected publication.

Articles will not normally be deleted from the journal's archive solely because they have been retracted. The original record will remain accessible with an appropriate and clearly visible retraction notice.

Retraction decisions and notices will follow applicable COPE retraction guidance.

After Acceptance

Following acceptance, the manuscript enters the production stage for editorial preparation, typesetting, and online publication.

The corresponding author may be asked to verify:

  1. Author and Affiliation Details — The accuracy of author names, affiliations, corresponding-author information, and other publication metadata.

  2. Funding and Declarations — The accuracy and completeness of funding, conflict-of-interest, ethical approval, and other required statements.

  3. Proofs — The formatted article proof for typographical, formatting, reference, figure, table, and factual errors.

Authors are expected to return proofs within the timeframe specified by the editorial office.

At the proof stage, corrections should normally be limited to errors introduced during production or necessary factual corrections. Substantive changes to the manuscript are not normally permitted after acceptance without editorial approval.

Preprint Policy

Hyrcanian Journal of Clinical Medicine accepts manuscripts that have previously been posted as preprints, provided that the preprint does not constitute formal publication of the same work under applicable publishing and disciplinary standards.

Authors must disclose the existence of a preprint at submission and provide its DOI or persistent link and relevant citation information.

Authors remain responsible for ensuring that posting and sharing of the preprint comply with applicable copyright, confidentiality, ethical, and institutional requirements.

Where appropriate, authors should identify the preprint in the manuscript or submission information.

Posting a preprint does not, by itself, disqualify a manuscript from consideration or determine the editorial outcome.

Reviewer Recognition

The journal recognizes peer review as an essential scholarly contribution.

Reviewers who complete peer reviews may receive formal acknowledgment or other appropriate recognition from the journal, subject to the confidentiality of the peer-review process.

Where supported by the relevant services and chosen by the reviewer, peer-review activity may be linked to the reviewer's professional research profile, such as ORCID, without disclosing confidential reviewer information.

Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be published when serious concerns arise regarding the integrity, reliability, authorship, ethics, or other important aspects of a published article, but available evidence is insufficient for immediate correction or retraction, or an investigation is ongoing or significantly delayed.

An Expression of Concern is an editorial notice intended to alert readers to a substantive unresolved issue. It is not itself a finding of misconduct and does not constitute a retraction.

An Expression of Concern may be considered when:

  • There is credible but inconclusive evidence of possible research or publication misconduct.

  • Serious concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of published findings, but the available evidence is not yet sufficient for retraction.

  • An appropriate institutional or external investigation is underway and its conclusion is expected to require substantial time.

  • An institution responsible for investigating the concern is unable or unwilling to conduct an appropriate investigation.

  • Other circumstances create a substantial and unresolved concern about the integrity of the published record.

Procedure

The journal will assess the concern and, where appropriate, seek relevant information from the authors, institutions, reviewers, or other responsible parties.

Any published Expression of Concern will use clear, factual, and neutral language and will explain the nature of the concern without presenting unresolved allegations as established facts.

The notice will be linked to the affected article and will remain part of the journal's publication record while the matter is being assessed.

Possible Outcomes

Following completion of an investigation or further editorial assessment, the journal may:

  • Publish a correction or other appropriate amendment if the issue is confirmed but does not invalidate the article.

  • Retract the article if the findings are determined to be unreliable or other grounds for retraction are established.

  • Publish an appropriate editorial clarification or notice if further action is required.

  • Update or otherwise resolve the Expression of Concern when the underlying issue has been adequately addressed.

Policy basis: The journal's peer-review and publication-ethics procedures are informed by the recommendations and guidance of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), as well as established principles of responsible scholarly publishing.