Reviewer Guideline

Journal of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry: Reviewer Guidelines
Evaluation Principles

Originality and Publication Ethics:

• Only manuscripts that have not been previously published, are not under simultaneous review by another journal, and have been approved by all authors will be considered for evaluation.
• Plagiarism Check: All submissions are screened using the iThenticate software after preliminary review. The similarity index must be 20% or below. Even a single sentence copied without citation constitutes an ethical violation.

Double-Blind Peer Review:

• Our journal applies a double-blind peer review process. Manuscripts undergo a preliminary assessment by the editor regarding scope, methodological consistency, and clinical relevance. Suitable manuscripts are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers.

Impartiality and Conflict of Interest:

• Reviews are conducted independently of authors’ identities, institutional affiliations, ethnic backgrounds, or financial support.
• Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Reviewers must notify the editor of any potential conflicts of interest (academic, financial, or personal) before accepting the invitation. Notifications should be made via the “Reviewer Invitation Response Form” or by emailing editor@journalclp.com. The editor will remove any conflicted reviewer from the evaluation process, assign an alternative reviewer, and inform the author accordingly.
• Examples of conflicts: Co-authorship or joint projects with the author within the last 3 years, funding from the institution mentioned in the manuscript, kinship, or commercial partnership relations.

Editorial Decision Process:

• The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief. Editors cannot participate in the review process of their own work.

Peer Review Process:

• Review Period: The standard duration is 21 days, with an additional 7 days permissible under urgent circumstances.
• Number of Reviewers: At least two expert reviewers are assigned by the handling editor. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer is involved.

Third Reviewer Appointment Procedure:

• If one reviewer recommends “accept” and the other “reject,” the discrepancy is assessed.
• Criteria for selecting the third reviewer include subject-matter expertise and an H-index ≥5 in Scopus/Web of Science.
• The third reviewer is appointed especially for methodological disputes, contradictory decisions, or technical disagreements requiring expertise.
• An additional 14 days are granted for the third review; the total review process must not exceed 35 days. This procedure complies with COPE Guideline #4.

Confidentiality:

• Reviewers are obliged to keep manuscript content and identities confidential. Breach of confidentiality results in a 2-year review ban and notification to the COPE database.

Third-Party Sharing Rules:

• Sharing manuscript content on social media or academic platforms is strictly prohibited.
• Sharing with assistants or students is allowed only with editor approval; the recipient’s name must be disclosed, and a confidentiality agreement signed (sample text provided in guidelines).
• Consultation with experts is permitted solely for specific methodological questions, and the expert opinion must be included in the review report.

Third-Party Sharing Declaration:

• I will not share the manuscript with any third party.
• I will share the manuscript → Please provide the following details:
• Person to share with: __________ (Title)
• Reason: ___________________________________
• Duration: _____ days (Maximum 7 days)
• Sharing without editor approval is prohibited.

Ethical Notifications:

• Reviewers must report suspected ethical violations within 48 hours to editor@journalclp.com with the subject line “ETHICAL VIOLATION REPORT – [Manuscript ID].”
• The report should specify the type of violation, page/line numbers causing suspicion, and supporting references.

Editorial Preliminary Review:

• Conducted within 7 working days following COPE flowcharts. In case of suspicion, an independent Ethics Committee (3 experts + editor) is formed to conduct a formal 30-day investigation.
• The outcome is communicated as rejection, correction, or no change. Rejections are reported to Crossref, and the PDF is watermarked accordingly.

Review Criteria:

• Clinical/Scientific Contribution: Does the study offer new perspectives, practical implications, or evidence for consultation-liaison psychiatry? Do case reports provide concrete clinical recommendations?
• Methodological Rigor: Are research design, sample size, and analyses adequate? Are diagnostic criteria (DSM-5/ICD-11) clearly stated?
• Ethics and Patient Privacy: Is patient identity anonymized? Has ethical committee approval been obtained? Is there compliance with the Helsinki Declaration?
• References and Literature: Is recent literature (last 5 years) sufficiently discussed?
• Language and Expression: Is the text clear, terminology appropriate, and writing fluent?

Reviewer Responsibilities:

• Submit reports within 21 days; notify editor in case of delay.
• Provide constructive and courteous feedback.
• Justify decisions transparently.
• Maintain confidentiality of research data.
• Securely destroy patient identifiers and sensitive data after review.
• Obtain editor approval and sign confidentiality agreement when working with assistants or students.

Sample Confidentiality Agreement:
“I, ______________, commit to using manuscript [Manuscript ID] solely for academic review purposes, will not copy or share it, and will destroy all materials within 7 days. I accept legal responsibility in case of violation.”
Signature: _________ Date: _________

Use of Digital Tools:

• Manuscript content must not be uploaded to online tools; AI-generated review reports are prohibited.
• AI use is restricted to language correction/proofreading tools (e.g., Grammarly, QuillBot).
• All translations must be manually verified.
• Reviewers may only use the iThenticate report provided by the editor; unauthorized plagiarism scans are forbidden.
• All digital tools used must be declared in the review form.

Violations and Sanctions:

• AI-assisted report writing: removal from reviewer pool + COPE notification.
• Unauthorized plagiarism scanning: warning + 1-year reviewer ban.
• Translation errors: report invalidated.

Process Flow:

• Preliminary review by editor within 7 working days.
• Assignment of reviewers for eligible manuscripts.
• Revision: Authors granted 30 days for revisions upon conditional acceptance.
• Final decision: Submitted to the Publication Board after two positive reviews.

Important Notes:

• All articles are open access under the Creative Commons BY 4.0 license.
• Ethical violations are assessed per COPE guidelines.
• Author appeals must be sent within 14 days of decision notification to editor@journalclp.com.
• Grounds for appeal include scientific error, conflict of interest, or procedural violation.
• Appeals based on scientific priority, methodological preference, reviewer tone, or dissatisfaction with rejection are not accepted.
• Appeal process: Editor preliminary review (7 days), independent committee evaluation (30 days); if rejected, process ends; if reconsidered, a new review process begins.

Contact:
For inquiries: editor@journalclp.com

Patient Identification Warning:

• If identifiable patient information (photo, full ID number, birth date, or medical record number) is included, the following notice must be added:
  “This manuscript contains identifiable patient information such as photographs, full ID numbers, birth dates, or medical record numbers. This violates Article 24 of the Helsinki Declaration. The author must anonymize this data.”

This guideline has been originally prepared to reflect the scientific quality and ethical standards of the Journal of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry. We appreciate your valuable contributions to the peer review process.

 

 

 

J ournal of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry Reviewer Evaluation and Recommendations

 

	Acceptable	Revision Needed	Comments
TITLE – ABSTRACT
Turkish Title (Clinical relevance/terminology)
English Title (APA 7/KLP terminology)
Turkish Abstract (Introduction-Method-Results coherence)
English Abstract (Consistency/language quality)
Keywords (KLP-focused)
SCIENTIFIC CONTENT	Acceptable	Revision Needed	Comments
Introduction: Literature gap/interdisciplinary linkage
Method: Ethics committee approval/patient anonymization
Results: Clarity of tables/figures/clinical applicability
Discussion: Comparison with KLP literature/practical implications
Acknowledgements
Tables/Figures/Photos/Images
Abbreviations
References: Last 5 years KLP studies/ Vancouver style
ETHICAL AND FORMAL CRITERIA	Acceptable	Revision Needed	Comments
Language Fluency (Terminology)
Conflict of Interest Statement
Patient Privacy
Declaration of Ethics Committee Approval

Reviewer Recommendations
Scientific Importance	• High	• Sufficient	• Moderate	• Insufficient
Publication Priority	• Top priority	• Near future	• Medium term	• Not publishable
Revision Request and Final Decision	• Acceptable	• Acceptable with minor revisions	• Major revisions needed; re-evaluation after changes	• Reject

 

If the manuscript is rejected, please specify the reason:
............................................................................................................