Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology undergo a thorough and structured peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scientific quality, originality, and ethical integrity. The process is designed to provide authors with fair, constructive, and transparent feedback.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

  • Upon submission, every manuscript is screened by the Editorial Office and/or the Editor-in-Chief for:
    • Compliance with the journal's scope and aims
    • Adherence to submission guidelines (formatting, word limits, references, figures, and tables)
    • Ethical compliance (e.g., ethics committee approval, informed consent, plagiarism check)
  • Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be rejected without external review. Authors will receive an explanation, allowing them to correct and resubmit if appropriate.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Manuscripts passing the initial assessment are sent to at least two independent external reviewers who are experts in the subject area.
  • Both authors' and reviewers' identities are kept confidential to avoid bias.
  • Reviewers are selected based on:
    • Subject-matter expertise
    • Academic and clinical experience
    • Previous reviewing history and reliability

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts on multiple dimensions:

  1. Scientific Validity – Are the study design, methods, data analysis, and results sound and reproducible?
  2. Originality and Novelty – Does the manuscript present new knowledge or insights?
  3. Clinical or Academic Relevance – Is the work important to the field of otorhinolaryngology?
  4. Ethical Standards – Are human/animal research ethics and consent procedures adequately reported?
  5. Clarity and Structure – Are the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, tables, figures, and references clear and well-organized?
  6. Reference Accuracy – Are all relevant sources cited correctly, avoiding omissions or outdated references?

4. Reviewer Feedback

  • Reviewers provide detailed, constructive comments and may categorize their recommendation as:
    1. Accept without revisions
    2. Minor revisions required
    3. Major revisions required
    4. Reject
  • Reviewers should clearly justify their recommendations, highlight strengths and weaknesses, and suggest specific improvements to enhance clarity, completeness, or scientific rigor.
  • Reviewers are also responsible for identifying unacknowledged prior work and any overlap with previously published manuscripts.

5. Revision Process

  • If revisions are requested, the corresponding author receives a reviewer report summarizing all comments.
  • Authors are expected to:
    • Address every point raised by the reviewers
    • Provide a point-by-point response letter explaining changes or justifying why certain suggestions were not followed
    • Submit a revised manuscript within the timeframe specified by the editorial office
  • Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for a second assessment, especially if major changes were made.

6. Final Decision

  • The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with Associate Editors, makes the final decision on the manuscript.
  • Possible outcomes include:
    1. Acceptance – Manuscript is approved for publication
    2. Conditional Acceptance – Minor adjustments are required before publication
    3. Further Revision Required – Major issues remain; authors must revise and resubmit
    4. Rejection – Manuscript is unsuitable for publication in its current form
  • The final decision is based on:
    1. Reviewers' recommendations
    2. Quality and completeness of the revision
    3. Alignment with the journal's scope and standards
  • Authors are notified of the decision and reasoning to ensure transparency and to facilitate improvement for future submissions.

7. Transparency and Ethical Standards

  • The journal strictly adheres to the guidelines of ICMJE, WAME, CSE, COPE, EASE, and NISO, and follows the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/).
  • Any conflicts of interest of authors, reviewers, or editors are disclosed and managed appropriately.
  • The peer review process is conducted in a way that ensures fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality.

8. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Maintain confidentiality regarding all manuscript content
  • Conduct evaluations objectively and constructively
  • Identify unreferenced relevant literature
  • Declare any conflicts of interest
  • Disclose any use of AI-based tools in preparing reviews, ensuring they do not compromise confidentiality or objectivity