MediHealth Academy Publishing publishes its books in accordance with international academic book standards through editorial review, similarity screening, peer review, and production processes.
1. General Publication Workflow
The book publication process consists of administrative screening, preliminary editorial evaluation, ethical review, similarity screening, peer review, and production stages. Authors or editors upload book or chapter files to the system for evaluation. Submissions are first reviewed by the editorial office in terms of format, scope, and compliance with basic publishing principles.
Participation in the publication process is carried out in accordance with editorial planning and the publication schedule. Necessary administrative procedures are completed at the initial stage of the process. If authors do not fulfill their chapter writing obligations, new authors may be assigned in order to maintain editorial planning and prevent disruption of the publication schedule. If an author withdraws from participation or wishes to cancel the process, cancellation and refund requests are evaluated in accordance with the institution’s relevant administrative and financial procedures.
After the submission of chapter files, the works are evaluated by the relevant section editors or reviewers. At this stage, revisions may be requested, acceptance may be recommended, or the work may be rejected. Subsequently, similarity screening is conducted by the editorial office. In accordance with the publication policy, the similarity rate is expected to be below 20%.
Following the similarity review, the chief editor or editorial board evaluates the work and issues one of the following decisions: revision, acceptance, or rejection. Accepted works are moved to the typesetting and production stage.
The publication process generally consists of the following stages:
1. Uploading submission files to the system
2. Administrative and preliminary editorial screening
3. Section editor or reviewer evaluation
4. Revision process where necessary
5. Similarity screening
6. Chief editor or editorial board decision
7. Typesetting and production process
8. Peer Review Process
Section editors and reviewers are selected from among experts in the relevant academic field. Reviewers who accept the evaluation invitation are expected to evaluate only works related to their areas of expertise and to comply with the confidentiality of the review process.
During the review process, reviewers consider the scientific quality, originality, academic contribution, methodological appropriateness, use of references, compliance with ethical principles, and publication language of the work. Revisions may be requested from authors where necessary.
The review process is conducted on the basis of confidentiality. Reviewers may not share information, documents, or data related to the works they evaluate with third parties and may not use them before publication.
2. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers and section editors consider the following basic criteria during the evaluation process:
1. Alignment between the title and the content
2. Academic quality and originality of the work
3. Suitability for the target audience
4. Contribution to the field
5. Coherence of the subject
6. Clarity of the scope and conceptual framework
7. Methodological appropriateness
8. Quality of language and expression
9. Currency and adequacy of references
10. Appropriateness of tables, figures, graphs, and visuals
11. Compliance with ethical principles
12. Compliance with copyright and citation rules
13. Evaluation Decisions
As a result of the evaluation, one of the following decisions may be issued:
1. Accept
2. Accept after revision
3. Re-evaluation after revision
4. Reject
For works requiring revision, authors are expected to complete the necessary corrections. Where necessary, the revised work may be sent again for reviewer or section editor evaluation.
3. Data, Confidentiality, and Conflict of Interest
For studies based on field research, clinical research, or data analysis, additional information, documents, or data may be requested to ensure a proper evaluation process. Such requests are handled within the editorial process and in accordance with confidentiality principles.
Section editors and reviewers must not have any conflict of interest related to the work, authors, or supporting institutions. Potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editor. Conflict of interest situations are evaluated in accordance with publication ethics principles.