Makalenin Dergideki Yolculuğu
Özet
Bir bilimsel makalenin dergiye sunulmasından yayımlanmasına kadar geçen süreç, teknolojik gelişmelerle birlikte önemli değişimlere uğramıştır. Daktilo ve posta yoluyla yürütülen, iletişim ve karar sürelerinin oldukça uzun olduğu fiziksel gönderim süreçlerinden, 1990'larla bilgisayar ve internetin yaygınlaşmasıyla birlikte dijital, web tabanlı yönetim sistemlerine geçilmiştir. Küresel yayıncılık standartlarının rehberliğinde, bu dijital dönüşüm, süreçleri hızlandırmış ve şeffaflığı artırmış olsa da; sekreterya kontrolü, editöryal inceleme, hakem değerlendirmesi ve revizyon gibi temel basamaklar bilimsel nitelik açısından önemini korumaya devam etmiştir. Bu süreçte yazarların doğru dergi seçimi, titiz metin ve eklerinin hazırlığı ve etik kurallara uyumu kritik öneme sahiptir. Editörler, gönderilen çalışmaları öncelikle teknik ve bilimsel yeterlilik açısından "masabaşı" değerlendirmeye tabi tutarken, uygun görülenler hakem değerlendirmesine alınır. Hakem raporları ve editör kararları doğrultusunda gerçekleşen revizyon döngüleri, makalenin kalitesini artırmayı hedeflerken, reddedilme de sürecin doğal ve öğretici bir parçası olarak kabul edilmelidir. Sonuç olarak, yazar, editör ve hakem arasındaki bu çok aşamalı etkileşim, bilimsel iletişimin kalitesini ve güvenilirliğini sağlayan dinamik bir yolculuktur.
The process from the submission of a scientific article to a journal to its publication has undergone significant changes with technological developments. The physical submission process, which was carried out via typewriter and mail and involved lengthy communication and decision-making periods, was replaced by digital, web-based management systems with the widespread adoption of computers and the internet in the 1990s. Guided by global publishing standards, this digital transformation has accelerated processes and increased transparency; however, fundamental steps such as secretarial control, editorial review, peer review, and revision remain essential to scientific quality. In this process, authors' selection of the right journal, careful preparation of the text and supplements, and compliance with ethical rules are of critical importance. Editors first subject submitted works to a “desktop” evaluation in terms of technical and scientific adequacy, and those deemed appropriate are sent for peer review. Revision cycles based on reviewer reports and editor decisions aim to improve the article's quality. At the same time, rejection should be accepted as a natural and instructive part of the process. Ultimately, this multistage interaction among author, editor, and reviewer is a dynamic process that ensures the quality and reliability of scientific communication.
Referanslar
LaPorte RE, Marler E, Akazawa S, et al. The death of biomedical journals. BMJ. 1995 May 27;310(6991):1387-90. doi: 0.1136/bmj.310.6991.1387.
Ghasemi A, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, et al. Scientific publishing in biomedicine: a brief history of scientific journals. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2022 Dec 31;21(1):e131812. doi: 10.5812/ijem-131812.
Van der Weyden MB. The ICMJE and URM: Providing independent advice for the conduct of biomedical research and publication. Mens Sana Monogr. 2007 Jan;5(1):15-25. doi: 10.4103/0973-1229.32145.
İnternet sitesi: https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 29.12.2025)
EASE guidelines for authors and translators of scientific articles to be published in English. Acta Inform Med. 2014 Jun;22(3):210-7. doi: 10.5455/aim.2014.22.210-217.
Wager E. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Objectives and achievements 1997-2012. Presse Med. 2012 Sep;41(9 Pt 1):861-6. doi: 10.1016/j.lpm.2012.02.049.
Walshe C, Ashby D. Opening the black box: Understanding the editorial and peer review journey of a manuscript. Palliat Med. 2025 Dec 20;2692163251406788. doi:10.1177/02692163251406788.
Kemal Ö, Karlıdağ T, Bilgen C, et al. The journey of a manuscript submitted to the Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology: From receipt to decision. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022 Sep;60(3):118-20. doi:10.4274/tao.2022.2022-02.
Ginsburg S, Lynch M, Walsh CM. A fine balance: How authors strategize around journal submission. Acad Med. 2018 Aug;93(8):1176-81. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000002265.
Roederer M, Marciniak MW, O’Connor SK, et al. An integrated approach to research and manuscript development. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2013 Jul 15;70(14):1211-8. doi:10.2146/ajhp120167.
Wong TE, Srikrishnan V, Hadka D, et al. A multi-objective decision-making approach to the journal submission problem. PLoS One. 2017 Jun 5;12(6):e0178874. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178874.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017 Mar 16;15(1):28. doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9.
Erdağ TK. Are we as otorhinolaryngologists aware of the danger of predatory journals? Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Sep;55(3):95-8. doi:10.5152/tao.2017.201702.
Etemadi A, Raiszadeh F, Alaeddini F, et al. Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication. Saudi Med J. 2004 Jan;25(1 Suppl):S29-33.
Eccles MP, Foy R, Sales A, et al. Implementation Science six years on—our evolving scope and common reasons for rejection without review. Implement Sci. 2012 Jul 27;7:71. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-71.
Joubert G, Mulder T, Steinberg WJ, et al. Journal response types and times: The outcomes of manuscripts finalised for submission by the University of the Free State School of Medicine medical editor, South Africa. Pan Afr Med J. 2020 Jul 24;36:212. doi:10.11604/pamj.2020.36.212.24175.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 1;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
Tokgöz Kaplan T, Özüdoğru S. Knowledge and awareness of the use of reporting guidelines in specialist dentists: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2025 Apr 18;25(1):574. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07131-9.
Bayram A. CARE (CAse REport) Guidelines: a recipe for more transparent case reports. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022 Jun;60(2):63-64. doi: 10.4274/tao.2022.2022-01.
Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, et al. Scientific publishing in biomedicine: how to write a cover letter? Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2021 Jul 25;19(3):e115242. doi: 10.5812/ijem.115242.
Hachfi H, Kechida M, Kaddoussi R, et al. Writing an effective and succinct cover letter: A practical guide. Tunis Med. 2024 Dec 5;102(12):988-994. English. doi: 10.62438/tunismed.v102i12.5438.
Ghahramani Z, Mehrabani G. The criteria considered in preparing manuscripts for submission to biomedical journals. Bull Emerg Trauma. 2013 Apr;1(2):56-9.
Jawaid SA, Jawaid M. Common reasons for not accepting manuscripts for further processing after editor's triage and initial screening. Pak J Med Sci. 2019 Jan-Feb;35(1):1-3. doi: 10.12669/pjms.35.1.28.
Meyer HS, Durning SJ, Sklar DP, et al. Making the first cut: An analysis of Academic Medicine editors’ reasons for not sending manuscripts out for external peer review. Acad Med. 2018 Mar;93(3):464-70. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001860.
Yanık B, Evcik D, Geler Külcü D, et al. Why do manuscripts submitted to the Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation get rejected? Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2023 Dec;69(4):535-40. doi:10.5606/tftrd.2023.13204.
Lamb CR, Mai W. Acceptance rate and reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound during 2012. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2015 Jan-Feb;56(1):103-8. doi:10.1111/vru.12168.
Wren JD, Georgescu C. Detecting anomalous referencing patterns in PubMed papers suggestive of author-centric reference list manipulation. Scientometrics. 2022 Oct;127(10):5753-5771. doi: 10.1007/s11192-022-04503-6.
Rampelotto PH. A critical assessment of the peer review process in Life: From submission to final decision. Life (Basel). 2023 Jul 21;13(7):1603. doi:10.3390/life13071603.
Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, et al. Scientific publishing in biomedicine: Revising a peer-reviewed manuscript. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2022 Jan 1;20(1):e120366. doi:10.5812/ijem.120366.
Jawaid SA, Jawaid M. Author’s failure to read and follow instructions leads to increased trauma to their manuscripts. Pak J Med Sci. 2018 May-Jun;34(3):519-24. doi:10.12669/pjms.343.15633.
Nüst D, Eglen SJ. CODECHECK: An open science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility. F1000Res. 2021;10:253. doi:10.12688/f1000research.51738.2.
Karlıdağ T, Bilgen C, Erdağ TK. Fate of manuscripts rejected by Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology between 2015 and 2017. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 Jun;58(2):78-9. doi:10.5152/tao.2020.0332.
Faggion CM Jr, Menne MC. The fate of rejected manuscripts in different biomedical disciplines. J Evid Based Med. 2024 Jun;17(2):259-262. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12617.
