Anemon Muş Alparslan University Journal of Social Sciences is an international peer-reviewed journal published three issues a year (30 April - 30 August - 30 December).
Our journal uses a double-blind referee system in which the identities of referees and authors are kept confidential to each other. For this reason, the names of the referees are not published.

Review Process:
1) The Editorial Board evaluates the submissions (research articles, translations, symposium evaluations, book reviews) in terms of the journal's scope, scientific content, and format, following the publication guidelines. Additionally, iThenticate is employed to verify that the articles are unpublished and free of plagiarism. Submissions that pass the Editorial Board's evaluation are subject to review by expert reviewers in accordance with the double-blind peer-review principle.

2) The Editor assigns a Field Editor to the submissions that pass the initial evaluation. The Field Editor sends the submission to at least two expert reviewers for evaluation. The assigned reviewers are obliged to consider the "Reviewer Evaluation Criteria" throughout the evaluation process, starting from the moment they are assigned via the system and accept the task.

3) The assigned reviewers assess the quality of the submissions and contribute to the publication process. Our expectations from the reviewers include an objective evaluation of the submitted articles, verifying the accuracy of the content, and identifying areas that require improvement before publication.
During the review process, it is essential to evaluate the suitability and originality level of the submitted article. Factors such as the validity of the methods and data used in the article, logical presentation of the results, and adequacy of the literature review should be considered.

When conducting the review, we recommend that our assigned reviewers focus on the following areas:

Structure and Coherence of the Article: Check if the introduction, methods, findings, discussion, and conclusion sections are consistent with each other. Are the arguments and information in the article consistent?

Research Design: Assess whether the methods and data collection process used in the methods section is sufficient to address the purpose and research questions of the article. Are there any deficiencies or areas for improvement?

Data Analysis: Evaluate if the presented data analysis in the article is accurate and appropriate. Do the statistical methods used in the analysis valid, and do they support the results?

Literature review: Assess if the literature review in the article is sufficient. Does it accurately reflect previous studies?

Language and Writing in the Article: Ensure that the article is written in a clear and fluent manner. Identify any grammatical, writing, and errors requiring corrections.

Results and Discussion: Determine if the findings presented in the results section address the purpose of the article. Are the conclusions drawn from the results accurately interpreted?

🏷️Papers accepted by at least two reviewers are subjected to an editorial evaluation by the editorial board for the publication process. If one of the reviewers provides a rejection, the article is sent to a third reviewer.

🏷️If a reviewer decides not to re-examine the article despite giving a major revision decision, their opinion is considered as "reject," and the article is sent to a third reviewer.

🏷️Reviewers should provide their evaluations not only through the evaluation form but also by opening the review tab in the Word document, indicating that a scientific evaluation has been made, and providing corrections and suggestions on the article file. If a reviewer fails to upload the evaluation file, they are requested to upload it; if they do not, the article is submitted for evaluation to a third reviewer.

🏷️Reviewers should state the reasons for their decisions. Additionally, they should enter their institution, title, and name information accurately.

Reviewers' Ethical Responsibilities:

Confidentiality: Reviewers should keep the information related to the articles they review confidential. Information such as the content of the articles and the identities of the authors should be limited to reviewers only and should not be disclosed to others.

Impartiality: Reviewers should approach the articles they evaluate objectively and impartially. In the case of any conflict of interest or bias, they cannot fulfill their reviewing duties and should pass the evaluation of the article to another reviewer.

Appropriate Evaluation: Reviewers should evaluate the scientific quality and methodology of the articles. They should consider elements such as the originality of the research, the accuracy of the methods, the consistency of the results, and the contribution of the results to the field.

Misconduct and Plagiarism Allegations: If reviewers suspect any plagiarism or scientific misconduct in the articles they review, they should report this issue to the journal editors. It is important to thoroughly investigate allegations and take necessary measures.

Timely Feedback: Reviewers are responsible for evaluating the articles in a timely and effective manner. Providing feedback within the designated time frame for reviewing the article offers crucial information to researchers about the flow of the process and the publication timeline.

Reporting Ethical Violations: If reviewers detect any ethical violation or research irregularity in the articles they review, they should report this issue to the journal editors. Preserving the integrity and ethical standards of research is important.

The ethical responsibilities of reviewers are of critical importance in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the scientific publishing process. Fulfilling these responsibilities helps enhance the quality of researchers' work and build trust within the community

Fee
No fees are paid to reviewers for the review/evaluation process.