All submissions to ENT Updates undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review, designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and the highest standards of scientific quality. The editorial process is structured into four distinct stages: Initial Screening, Editorial Evaluation, External Peer Review, and Final Decision.

1. Initial Screening (Technical Check)
Upon submission, the editorial staff performs a preliminary review to confirm that the manuscript meets basic requirements for further processing. This includes:

• Adherence to formatting and submission guidelines;
• Completeness of required sections (e.g., abstract, references, figures);
• Ethical statements and conflict of interest disclosures;
• Plagiarism check using iThenticate;
• Language quality sufficient for academic review.

Only manuscripts passing this stage proceed to academic assessment.

2. Editorial Evaluation (Academic Pre-Check)
A senior academic editor—such as the Editor-in-Chief, a designated Editorial Board Member—is invited to perform an initial academic assessment. At this stage, the editor evaluates:

• The manuscript’s relevance to the scope of the journal or topical collection;
• Scientific soundness of the research design and methodology;
• Appropriateness and accuracy of references;
• Novelty and potential contribution to the field.

Based on this assessment, the editor may:

• Reject the manuscript without external review;
• Request clarifications or revisions prior to review;
• Advance the manuscript to external peer review and recommend reviewers.

To uphold editorial independence, editors are not involved in decisions related to their own submissions.

3. External Peer Review (Double-Blind Review)
Manuscripts that pass editorial evaluation enter the double-blind peer review process, where both the authors' and reviewers’ identities are concealed. At least two qualified independent reviewers are invited based on the following criteria:

• Demonstrated expertise and academic qualifications (typically PhD or equivalent);
• A strong publication record in the manuscript’s field;
• No recent collaboration or institutional affiliation with the authors;
• No conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Assess the originality, rigor, clarity, and significance of the research;
• Provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback;
• Adhere to ethical standards and confidentiality.

Reviewers are typically given 10–14 days to submit their reports. Extensions can be granted upon request. In cases of conflicting reviews, an additional reviewer may be consulted.

4. Final Decision
Upon receipt of reviewer reports, the assigned academic editor evaluates the feedback and recommends one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication without further changes.
• Minor or Major Revisions: The manuscript requires revisions before it can be accepted. A revised version may undergo an additional review round.
• Reject and Resubmit: The work may have potential but requires substantial redevelopment and full re-evaluation in a new submission.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current or foreseeable form.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized Editorial Board Member.

Editorial Support and Transparency
Throughout the process, a dedicated managing editor coordinates communications and supports timely review. Authors are kept informed via the journal’s online submission system (OJS), where they can access editorial updates and reviewer comments.

All accepted manuscripts undergo professional copy-editing and final English editing to ensure clarity and consistency before publication.