Çocuk Enfeksiyon Dergisi

Journal of Pediatric Infection aims to publish high quality scientific articles in the field of pediatric health and diseases. Review, original research, editor’s view, letter to the editor, case reports and educational scientific articles (what is your diagnosis?, routines, question-answer, clinical clues, news from the world literature) are accepted. It is an independent and unbiased journal published both in Turkish and English and relies on peer-review principles.

Articles are evaluated by at least two reviewers and the editorial board has the right to accept, request revision or reject the article. Reviewers are selected among experienced independent specialists who have publications in international literature.

Journal of Pediatric Infection is indexed by Web of Sciences, Emerging Sources Citation Index, CINAHL, Türkiye Atıf Dizini and TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Türk Tıp Dizini.

Key Questions for Reviewers

Does the title reflect the content of the article?

Are the keywords appropriate?

Does the abstract summarize the article? Can it be understood without reading the article? Are there any contradictions between the abstract and the article?

Is the work based on the medical literature research given in the introduction section? Is the aim of the study described?

Are the informed consent of the authors and the ethics committee approval given in the materials and methods section?

Is there a clear explanation of the methods that enable the results to be reproduced independently?

Does the discussion start with the most important results? Are the results compared with the related literature?

Are the limitations and results clear enough? Are all references in correct format?

Peer Review Workflow

Comprehensive, impartial, and evidence-based feedback from reviewers is crucial for rendering fair decisions regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of submissions to the Journal of Pediatric Infection. All research and review articles undergo a double-blind peer-review process conducted by selected specialists experienced in the subject area.

The objective of the review process is to assess the scientific quality, novelty, and implications of submissions, verify format and references, and provide comments on all aspects related to research and publication ethics.

Responsible editors usually appoint at least two external reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief, together with Associate Editors, reaches a decision based on reviewer comments and recommendations.

Following the initial internal review, manuscripts that are not within the scope of the journal or do not comply with editorial policies may be rejected without external review.

Acceptance or Rejection of Invitations

Reviewer invitations are sent to selected experts through the online submission system. Potential reviewers receive emails containing links to accept or decline the invitation.

If they accept the invitation, reviewers are expected to notify the editors within five (5) days. If no response is received within this period, alternative reviewers may be invited.

Experts who are unavailable, have conflicting obligations, or feel the manuscript does not match their expertise are encouraged to decline the invitation promptly using the decline link provided in the email.

Disclosure

Reviewers must disclose any potential financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that may influence their professional judgment. Detailed information regarding conflicts of interest can be found at http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/ .

Peer Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to submit their review reports within twenty-one (21) days after accepting the assignment. If additional time is required or the review cannot be completed, timely notification to the editorial office is appreciated.

All reviewer comments must be submitted through the online editorial system. Direct email submissions are discouraged; however, technical editors can be contacted if there are system-related issues.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding all manuscripts they evaluate and must not share any related information with third parties.

Reviewers should not cite manuscripts under review or use unpublished information to advance their own research before publication.

Reviewer identities remain anonymous throughout the peer review and publication process.

Tips for Reviewers

A good review has two main goals: (1) to assist editors in making a decision about the manuscript and (2) to guide authors on how to improve their work.

Constructive: Provide specific and detailed suggestions for improving sections of the manuscript.

Clear: Express expectations from the authors clearly and precisely.

Positive: Use polite and respectful language while avoiding personal criticism.

Identify Strengths: Clearly indicate which parts of the manuscript should remain unchanged.

Reviewers should avoid giving direct recommendations about publication decisions in comments intended for authors.

Comments to Editors

Reviewers should submit their confidential comments to the Associate Editor through the review system. Any concerns about the manuscript or potential conflicts of interest should be communicated privately to the editors.

Decisions on Submissions

Revisions: After a revised manuscript is submitted, the editor usually invites the reviewer(s) from the previous round to evaluate the revised version. Reviewers requesting revision are expected to continue participating in subsequent review rounds.

Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewer comments, editorial policies, acceptance criteria, and the overall editorial evaluation of the manuscript.