Manuscripts submitted to ENT Updates will go through a double anonymized peer-review process where both authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other.  Each submission will be reviewed by at least two external, independent peer reviewers who are experts in their fields in order to ensure an unbiased evaluation process. 

Submissions will first go through a technical evaluation process during which the editorial office staff will ensure that the manuscript was prepared and submitted in accordance with the journal’s guidelines. Submissions that do not conform to the journal’s guidelines will be returned to the submitting authors with technical correction requests. 

Submissions that conform to the journal’s guidelines will be assigned to the Editor in Chief who will assess each submission’s suitability to the journal in terms of scope and quality. Submissions that are not suitable for the journal can be rejected at this stage. 

For papers that are suitable for the journal, the Editor in Chief will work with Associate Editor who will recruit reviewers for the manuscript. Once assigned, Associate Editor can decide to reject a manuscript, continue with the peer review process, or request revisions before further peer-review. 

Associate editor will submit their recommendations that are based on reports submitted by the reviewers to the Editor in Chief. Revised manuscripts will be reassessed by the Associate Editor who will aim to work with the original reviewers to make a new recommendation.

The Editor in Chief is the final authority in the decision-making process for all submissions.

In the event of delays, authors will be informed of the reason for the delay and given the opportunity to withdraw their manuscript.

Once the peer-review process is completed, the authors will receive anonymous peer-review reports along with the editorial decision on their manuscript. Peer-review reports will not be posted publicly in any medium. The submitted material is considered confidential and must not be used in any way until after its publication. If it is suspected that a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data, the Editorial Board will handle the matter in accordance with the relevant COPE’s guideline.

Authors can recommend peer-reviewers during submission. The handling editor is the sole authority to decide whether or not recommended peer-reviewers will be invited to evaluate the manuscript. 

Peer reviewers are required to adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers and  These guidelines provide a framework for reviewers to follow in order to ensure the integrity and fairness of the peer review process. The Editorial Board follows COPE’s relevant flowchart to minimize peer review manipulation. If there is suspicion of peer review manipulation after publication, the Editorial Board will follow the appropriate flowchart of COPE.

Potential peer reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Informing the editor of any potential conflicts of interest allows them to make an informed decision about whether or not to invite the potential reviewer to participate in the review process. It also helps to ensure the integrity and transparency of the review process.

Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.

To ensure an equitable peer-review process, the ENT Updates will recruit external editors for manuscripts submitted by the Journal’s editorial board members. External editors will be selected based on academic qualifications and peer-review experience. We uphold the confidentiality of external editors and reviewers to preserve impartiality. Reviewers and external editors are asked to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, promoting transparency and a reliable evaluation process.

If an article's peer review is an exception to the journal’s usual policy, the type of the review it received will be displayed on the article to ensure the transparency and accountability of the review process.