Journal Peer Review Guideline: Double-Blind
This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. To help with this preparation please ensure the following when submitting: Please submit the Title Page containing the Authors details and -Blinded Manuscript- with no author details as 2 separate files. This should include the title, authors' names and affiliations, and a complete address for the corresponding author including telephone and e-mail address.
Besides the obvious need to remove names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript, there are other steps that need to be taken to ensure the manuscript is correctly prepared for double-blind peer review. To assist with this process the key items that need to be observed are as follows:
Authors can check the status of a manuscript at any time in the submission system. Authors will also be notified by email when a decision is made.
Manuscript Submitted: The journal has received the submission and is screening it for basic technical requirements.
With Editor: The manuscript is under editorial consideration by one or more members of the Editorial Board who will decide whether or not to send it out for peer review.
Under Review: The handling editor has begun to invite peer reviewers to evaluate the submission.
The decision in Process: The reviews have been received, and the editors are discussing and finalizing the decision that includes acceptance, minor or major revisions or reject with reasons.
Very rarely, editors may need to seek additional reviewers at this stage.
Criteria for Publication
To be considered for publication in ULUTAS MED J, any given manuscript must satisfy the following criteria:
High importance to researchers in the field
Broad interest to researchers in genetics and genomics
Substantial evidence for its conclusions
For manuscripts that focus on descriptive genomics, the UMJ editors are generally most enthusiastic about those that also include innovative theoretical treatment or follow-up experimentation that reveals novel and significant biological insight. For work in which disruption of gene function in model organisms plays an important role, compelling evidence of causality and specificity is required, generally supported by germline mutations.
Our aim is to provide all authors with an efficient, courteous, and constructive editorial process. To achieve its required level of quality, it is highly selective in the manuscripts that it publishes; rejection rates are high. To ensure the fairest and most objective decision-making, the editorial process is run as a partnership between the UMJ Editors-in-Chief, a team of Section Editors, and a group of academic experts who act as Associate Editors. Submitted manuscripts are first reviewed by the Editors-in-Chief or the Section Editors, who may decide to reject the paper or send it on to an Associate Editor for further review. The Associate Editor is most often a member of the UMJ Editorial Board, but occasionally a guest of the Board is invited to serve in this capacity.
If you have submitted a presubmission inquiry, responses are normally provided within a few working days. Responses may take longer if consultation between members of the Editorial Board is required. If you are invited to submit your manuscript, we will do our best to provide an expeditious initial assessment of the complete manuscript for suitability and then, if warranted, external peer review. The Associate Editor evaluates the paper and decides whether it describes a sufficient body of work to support a major advance in a particular field. If so, the paper is sent out for external peer review, at which stage the technical and scientific merits of the work are carefully considered.
Read the guidelines for editors
Upon submission of a manuscript, authors are asked whether they wish to exclude any specific Associate Editors or reviewers from the peer review of their manuscript. The editorial team will respect these requests so long as this does not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission. The selection of appropriate and responsive reviewers is paramount for the success of the review process. We decide on reviewers for a particular manuscript based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations of authors and Associate Editors, and the Associate Editor’s own knowledge of a reviewer's past performance.
Once the reviews have been received and considered by the editors, a decision letter to the corresponding author is drafted and sent. The decision will be within one of the following categories:
Reviewers are anonymous by default. Reviewers’ identities are not revealed to authors or to other reviewers unless reviewers specifically request to be identified by signing their names at the end of their comments. In most cases, editors remain anonymous to authors until the first decision letter is issued. The Associate Editor’s name is also indicated in the published article. The names of the authors are not anonymous to reviewers or editors during review so that they can assess potential conflicts of interest.
If you have received a revise decision, read the guidelines for revising your manuscript. If, after peer review, the editors consider that a manuscript is scientifically sound, but does not meet UMJ’s criteria for novelty and impact, authors may be offered the opportunity to transfer their submission directly to UMJ for acceptance with or without minor revisions. This service is intended to reduce the time to acceptance by eliminating the need for further rounds of review.
If your manuscript has been accepted, read about what to expect and how you can expedite the publication process.