Manuscripts are submitted to Klimik Journal through the journal’s online manuscript submission system. Submitted manuscripts are first checked for technical compliance. The language, figures, and tables are reviewed, along with the required documents for the manuscript (author contribution form, copyright approval form, patient consent for case reports, ethics committee approval), references, and plagiarism. Manuscripts that pass this stage are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief assesses whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s policy, follows publication rules, and contributes scientifically to the field. Approved manuscripts go to an editor, who starts the review process. The editor selects at least two reviewers to evaluate the manuscript and give feedback. If needed, the manuscript is referred to the Statistics Editor.

Reviewers are selected from experts in the relevant field and are expected to have no conflicts of interest with the authors. When the manuscript is sent to reviewers, the identities of the authors and the institutions where the study was conducted are concealed to prevent bias.

The editor evaluates the reviewers’ suggestions, criticisms, and contributions and forwards them to the authors if deemed sufficient. If deemed necessary, the editor may send the manuscript to additional reviewers. Reviewer identities are kept confidential when their comments are communicated to the authors. Thus, the scientific content of the manuscripts is evaluated objectively through a double-blind review process.

After the authors revise the manuscript, the manuscript is returned to the editor. It may be sent back to the reviewers for further evaluation. Based on the reviewers’ evaluations, the editor decides whether the manuscript should be accepted or rejected.

Accepted manuscripts are checked by English and Turkish language editors. The publisher prepares the typeset manuscript and sends it to the authors for final approval. Final articles are published electronically on the journal’s website.

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts regardless of the authors’ age, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or political views.

Peer-review evaluations should be objective. Reviewers are expected to consider the following points when evaluating a manuscript:

• Does the manuscript present new and important information?
• Does the abstract clearly describe the content of the manuscript?
• Are the hypotheses and objectives of the study clearly stated?
• Is the research methodology clearly described, and is it appropriate to test the hypothesis?
• Are the findings presented clearly and objectively in the Results section without interpretation?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions in the Discussion supported by the findings?
• Are sufficient references to national and international studies provided?
• Is the language of the manuscript clear and consistent with the journal’s writing rules?

Reviewers must keep all manuscript information confidential until publication. If they identify copyright infringement or plagiarism, they should inform the editor.

If reviewers feel unqualified or are unable to complete a timely review, they must promptly inform the editor and request withdrawal from the review process.

Manuscripts are the property of the authors. Reviewers and editorial board members must not share manuscripts. To uphold data protection, confidentiality, and publication ethics, reviewers must not upload manuscripts or identifiable content to generative AI tools or external platforms for analysis, summarization, or feedback.

Reviewers may use AI-based tools only to help organize, edit, or improve the clarity of their own review reports. However, manuscript files, data, or confidential information related to the manuscript must never be entered, uploaded, or shared with any AI-based tools, whether for language, analysis, or any other assistance.

Suggestions generated by AI tools should be critically appraised. Reviewers remain fully responsible for their review content and accuracy. AI-generated text must never be included in review reports without proper assessment and personal verification by the reviewer.