Reviewer Guidelines

1. General Guidelines
All articles submitted to Kybele Medical Journal undergo a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential. The journal considers the preservation of impartiality, confidentiality, and ethical responsibility during the evaluation process to be fundamental to its publication quality. Peer review plays a central role in editorial decision-making and aims to enhance the scientific quality of manuscripts while ensuring reliable contributions to the medical literature.

2. Reviewer Evaluation Policy
Reviewers are expected to provide fair, impartial, scientifically rigorous, constructive, timely, and responsible evaluations. The role of reviewers extends beyond advising on publication decisions; they are also expected to offer substantive feedback on the scientific and methodological quality of submitted manuscripts.

3. Acceptance of the Reviewer’s Invitation
Before accepting an invitation to review, reviewers are expected to consider the following:
• Whether the subject of the manuscript falls within their area of expertise;
• Whether they can complete the review within the specified time frame (typically 15 days);
• Whether any potential conflicts of interest exist in relation to the manuscript.
If a potential conflict of interest (personal, academic, financial, or institutional) is identified, reviewers must inform the Editor prior to accepting the invitation. In such cases, the invitation to review must be declined.

4. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities
The peer review process is strictly confidential. Manuscripts under review must not be used, shared, or reproduced for any purpose other than evaluation. Unpublished content must not be disclosed to third parties, and reviewers must not seek advice or opinions from others regarding the evaluation of the manuscript.
Reviewers must not upload the content of manuscripts under review to artificial intelligence tools (e.g., ChatGPT or similar large language model–based systems) and must not use such tools in the preparation of review reports.
In cases of suspected ethical misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, or lack of appropriate ethics committee approval), reviewers must report their concerns to the Editor through the Confidential Comments section.
Kybele Medical Journal adheres to the COPE Guidelines for Reviewers throughout its peer review process.

5. Review Process
Manuscripts that comply with the journal’s basic publication principles are sent to at least two independent external reviewers. Following receipt of the reviewers’ reports, the manuscript is re-evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board, and a final editorial decision is made.
Reviewer evaluations are based on the following criteria: originality and scientific contribution; methodological adequacy; clinical or scientific relevance; ethical compliance; quality of language and presentation; and suitability for the journal’s scope and target audience.

6. Preparing the Reviewer Report
Reviewer reports should be written in an objective, respectful, and constructive manner. Reviewers should avoid personal, derogatory, or aggressive language. Comments should be supported by clear reasoning and, where appropriate, by specific examples. When necessary, references to page and line numbers should be provided.
When completing the evaluation form, reviewers are encouraged to address each of the following points in sufficient detail:
Is the manuscript original, and does it contribute new knowledge to the field?
Is the research question clearly stated and well defined?
Are the methods appropriate, adequate, and reproducible?
Are the results clearly presented and supported by the data?
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results?
Are references to current and relevant literature sufficient?
Is the language and style consistent with standards of scientific writing?
Are the figures and tables appropriate, clear, and informative?
Is the manuscript prepared in accordance with the journal’s style guidelines?
Is the ethical approval of the study adequately described, and have all necessary permissions been obtained?

7. Sex and Gender Equity Considerations
Reviewers are expected to assess whether manuscripts comply with the SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research)guidelines. Particular attention should be given to the appropriate and accurate use of sex and gender terminology in the manuscript, as well as to whether these variables have been adequately considered in the study design. Where applicable, reviewers should also evaluate whether data are appropriately disaggregated by sex and/or gender.

8. Reviewer Recommendations
At the conclusion of the review, reviewers are expected to select one of the following recommendations:
• Accept (no revision required)
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject
The reviewer’s recommendation must be consistent with the scientific rationale and comments provided in the review report.

9. Final Checks
Before submitting the review report, reviewers are encouraged to consider the following points:
• Whether their comments will help the authors improve the manuscript.
• Whether their critiques are clear, specific, and constructive.
• Whether their ethical and scientific assessments are clearly stated.
• Whether the report provides sufficient information for the editor to make an informed decision.