Peer Review Policy

The Military Caring Sciences (MCS) adheres to the standards and guidelines set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows its Code of Conduct when addressing potential misconduct cases.
The Military Caring Sciences (MCS) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure scholarly integrity and quality. The double-blind peer-review process helps minimize bias by focusing solely on the content. Peer-reviews enhance the quality of scientific publications, ensure that previous research in a given area is recognized, identify plagiarism, and are vital for academic course development. Additionally, engaging in peer-review allows reviewers to stay informed about the latest advancements within the field.
All manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team for relevance, formatting, and ethical compliance. It is essential to have the original studies approved by an accredited ethics committee and to have an ethics ID. Submissions that meet the criteria are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with subject matter expertise. The editorials and letters to the Editor are assessed by the Editorial Board. Reviewers offer insights on the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. We anticipate that most submissions will necessitate some modifications.
Authors are encouraged to read the Authors' Guidelines carefully and thoroughly to understand how to properly prepare a manuscript intended for publication. Upon receiving the manuscript, the corresponding author will be notified via email and provided with the manuscript registration number. Please include this manuscript number in the subject line of emails and in the names of all files sent to the Editor and Editorial staff thereafter.
Once a manuscript is submitted, no authors can be added, removed, or reordered. Following submission, the authors should only correspond with the Editor-in-Chief and the Scientific and Executive Manager about the status of the review process.
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on originality, methodological soundness, theoretical contribution, ethical standards, and clarity. The average review time is 2–6 weeks. Based on the reviews, the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor makes the final decision to accept, request revisions, or reject the manuscript.
If the manuscript is approved, the author will need to prepare a final version that incorporates the feedback from the reviewers. The electronic files will then be submitted to the Editor. After final acceptance, the manuscript will be handed over to the production team for copyediting and formatting for publication.

Editors and peer-reviewers must recognize and adhere to COPE’s ethical standards for reviewers. This includes maintaining the confidentiality of authors, refraining from publicly discussing an author’s work or materials during the pre-publication phase, and not claiming authors' ideas or intellectual property, among other responsibilities. Manuscripts will be assessed based on defined criteria, including originality, novelty, innovation, academic merit, and relevance, as well as COPE's reviewer guidelines. The assessment criteria will be confirmed through a standardized evaluation grid, which will be made available to both authors and reviewers. Reviewers will be selected based on their established expertise, as evidenced by their publications; authors may also propose peer-reviewers, provided there is no conflict of interest. Manuscripts can either be accepted with minor or major revisions or rejected if they fail to meet the standards established by the Military Caring Sciences (MCS).
The editors will collaborate with authors, as feasible, to ensure the publication of work that meets the highest standards. The editors will honor requests from authors to exclude a specific editor or reviewer from evaluating their submission, provided that these requests are logical and manageable. When revisions are necessary before a final decision is made, the revised manuscripts should be submitted within one month. If an author is unhappy with an editorial decision, they can file an appeal with the Editor-in-Chief, who will review all relevant materials (manuscript, correspondence, evaluations, etc.) and issue a final decision within one month.

Decision
Following each round of peer review, the reviewer(s) will evaluate the submitted manuscript along with the collected peer review reports. Decisions related to each submission will be made exclusively by the Editor(s), ensuring the integrity and high standards of our decision-making process. The Editor(s) may choose from the following options:
Accept the manuscript: the manuscript is deemed to be of high quality and is suitable for publication in the journal.
Revisions required: authors are requested to make revisions to their manuscript, and upon resubmission, the manuscript will be forwarded directly to the Editor-in-Chief for evaluation and decision (approve the submission, request further revisions, or reject the submission). In cases where one reviewer recommends major revisions and another reviewer declines the manuscript, it will be sent to a third reviewer who has not previously assessed it. Based on their feedback in conjunction with the opinions of the first two reviewers, a decision will be determined. If both reviewers suggest major revisions, the manuscript will be returned to the author.
If the outcome is ‘revision,’ the authors are expected to consider the feedback from the referees and editors. A second round of review may take place. Upon final approval, the authors must provide a conclusive version of the manuscript according to the prescribed template and submit it through the system to the Editorial team.
To ensure a speedy editorial process, each manuscript will have a maximum of two rounds of review and revisions. Therefore, authors are encouraged to address all the concerns raised by the reviewers immediately following the first round of peer review. Depending on the extent of the required changes, the reviewers' comments, and the thoroughness of the authors' revisions, acceptance for publication generally takes around 12 weeks (contingent upon final approval from both the reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief).
Reject the manuscript: If both reviewers reject the manuscript, it will be rejected and its file is closed.

Copyediting
Once the manuscript receives acceptance for publication, it will enter an initial phase of copyediting where the Editorial team will rectify any minor errors (including punctuation and references) and confirm that all essential details regarding the manuscript and its authors are provided. After the manuscript’s acceptance, the authors will receive an edited version for their final review. This is the last opportunity for significant changes to the text, as the subsequent phase—proofreading—focuses solely on correcting typographical and layout errors.

Proofreading 
The editorial team will produce the final edition of the manuscript in the journal's format, and the PDF proof will be sent to the author for a final review before publication. Authors are encouraged to meticulously review the proofs for any typographical or formatting mistakes and use the sticky notes feature to indicate and clarify any needed changes.

Publication 
Once the final proofed manuscript has been received and all corrections made, the manuscript will be published. The author will be promptly informed when the article becomes available online. In certain situations, publication may be postponed to ensure that all articles are released at the same time.

Appealing Decisions 
Authors who wish to contest the decision regarding their manuscript can do so by emailing the Editor-in-Chief within 15 days of receiving the decision. In these cases, a letter outlining the reasons for the appeal, as well as a comprehensive reply to any reviewers' comments, if applicable, should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. If necessary, the manuscript will be evaluated by another reviewer who has not previously assessed it. The Editor-in-Chief will consider the reviewers’ feedback along with any subsequent editorial communications. The decision made by the Editor-in-Chief will be considered final.

Privacy Statement 
The names and email addresses provided on this journal site will be utilized solely for the defined purposes of this journal and will not be disclosed for any other reasons or shared with any third parties.