The Turkish Journal of Vascular Surgery is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific integrity, clinical relevance, and ethical publishing in the field of vascular and endovascular surgery. The journal conducts a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of scientifically sound, original, and clinically valuable research.
Ethical Standards
Submitted manuscripts must be original, unpublished, and not under consideration by another journal simultaneously.
Authors are required to comply with internationally accepted ethical standards and publication principles, including the recommendations of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), and the Declaration of Helsinki where applicable.
For studies involving human participants or animals, appropriate ethics committee approval and informed consent statements must be clearly provided.
All authors must disclose any financial or personal conflicts of interest related to the submitted work.
Editorial Evaluation
All submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment to evaluate their suitability for the journal’s scope, scientific quality, ethical compliance, and adherence to submission requirements.
Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in vascular and endovascular surgery or related disciplines.
The journal applies a double-blind peer review model in which reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process.
Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical standards, and clinical relevance.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, confidentially, and within the requested review period.
Reviewers should assess the scientific validity, methodological quality, originality, and clinical relevance of submitted manuscripts and provide constructive comments to improve the quality of the work.
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline review assignments when such conflicts may affect impartial evaluation.
Any concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, image manipulation, or data integrity should be reported to the editors.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts and related materials are treated as confidential documents throughout the review process.
Reviewers and editors must not share, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.
Submitted files and peer review materials should not be uploaded to publicly accessible artificial intelligence platforms or third-party systems that may compromise confidentiality.
Editorial Responsibilities
Editors are responsible for ensuring a fair, unbiased, and ethical review process.
In situations involving potential conflicts of interest, such as when a manuscript is submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, an Editor, an Assistant Editor, or a member of the Editorial Board, editorial responsibility is assigned to an independent Handling Editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors. The submitting editor will have no access to the peer-review process and will not participate in the decision-making process. The final publication decision will be made independently by the Editor-in-Chief or, where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, by another designated senior editor.
Suspected ethical misconduct, including plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated data, or inappropriate authorship, may be evaluated in accordance with COPE recommendations.
The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for decision-making process regarding submitted manuscripts.
Author Responsibilities
Authors are responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and ethical compliance of their submitted work.
Authors should respond to reviewer comments professionally and provide revised manuscripts together with detailed responses to editorial and reviewer recommendations.
The journal reserves the right to request additional data, ethical approval documentation, or further clarification when necessary during the evaluation process.