Articles submitted for publication in the Psychosomatics Yearbook must be sent to editor@psikosomatik.org.

Submitted articles are first subject to an editorial review to assess their compliance with the aims and scope of the yearbook and with the submission guidelines. Articles that are found not to be in line with the aims and scope of the yearbook are returned to the authors at this stage. Articles that do not comply with the formatting and writing guidelines are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. The submitting author will be the primary contact person throughout the evaluation and publication process. 

During the initial evaluation stage, all submitted articles are examined using similarity checking and plagiarism detection software. The similarity index of an article must be below 20%. Articles exceeding this threshold are rejected without entering the peer-review process.

If an article is deemed appropriate following the editorial evaluation, two reviewers who are experts in the subject matter and scope of the study are appointed, and the peer-review process is initiated. The editor(s) have full authority in the selection and appointment of reviewers. A double-blind peer-review system is employed throughout the review process. Reviewers are expected to reach an objective judgment and to clearly justify their evaluations.

Articles that are not considered suitable for publication based on the reviewers’ evaluations are returned to the authors. Authors are notified of articles that are accepted for publication.

For articles requiring revision as requested by the reviewers, authors are granted a specific period to complete the necessary revisions. Revised articles must be resubmitted within this timeframe. If the allotted revision period is exceeded, the review process is terminated, and the article must be resubmitted as a new submission, at which point the initial evaluation process is restarted. Revised articles submitted within the given period may be sent back to the reviewers if deemed necessary, initiating a second round of peer review. If the reviewer does not request to re-evaluate the revised article, the final publication decision is made by the editor. During the second review stage, the reviewers assess the revisions made by the authors and submit their final recommendations to the editor. Based on these recommendations, the editor informs the authors of the final publication decision.

In cases where there is a disagreement between reviewers regarding the decision, the article is sent to a third reviewer.

If conflicting or incompatible revision recommendations arise, the editor has the authority to make the final decision, taking into consideration the reasoned explanations provided by the author(s).