After the completion of peer review, the editor evaluates the reviewer reports and recommendations and manages the final editorial process.
As a result of the evaluation, one of the following decisions may be issued for the work:
• Accept
• Accept after revision
• Re-evaluation after revision
• Reject
For works requiring revision, authors are expected to complete the requested corrections. Where considered necessary, the revised work may be resubmitted for reviewer or section editor evaluation.
If additional evaluation is requested by a reviewer or section editor, the work may be subjected to a further review process. Where necessary, the editor may share reviewer reports and editorial opinions with the editorial board or relevant academic committees.
If reviewer reports are unfavorable or the work does not meet publication standards, the work may be rejected and the process may be terminated. In such cases, the author is informed.
Data, Confidentiality, and Conflict of Interest
For studies involving data analysis, field research, or clinical research, reviewers may request additional data or explanations to ensure an appropriate evaluation process. Such requests are communicated to the authors through the editor.
Section editors and reviewers must not have any conflict of interest related to the works they evaluate. Potential conflicts of interest are disclosed to the editor and assessed in accordance with publication ethics principles.
Section editors and reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of all information, documents, and data accessed during the evaluation process. Such information may not be used before publication or shared with third parties.