ETHICAL PRACTICES FOR REFEREES PREPARED UNDER COPE DIRECTIVE

There are many application models for Referee Evaluation. The COPE guidelines can be followed for these implementation steps.

BE A PEER REVİEWER

1. Refereeing is part of academic writing.

2. Every individual who is an academic writer should also assume the responsibility of refereeing.

3. The articles of our journal are delivered via Dergipark Articles sent by mail should not be accepted.

4. The article sent to the peer reviewer is absolutely related to his / her field.

5. If it is not relevant to your field, you must return the article in the appropriate language.

6. If you have accepted to evaluate the article, you must return in time and in an appropriate language.

7. If there is a conflict of interest in the article submitted to the peer review, the article should not be evaluated.

8. Articles with a relationship of interest between the author and the peer reviewer should not be accepted.

9. There should be no arbitration on behalf of another person.

10. Be absolutely impartial in article evaluation.

COMPETİNG OF INTEREST

1. You must be sure of a possible conflict of interest situations.

2. If there is a possibility of a conflict of interest that prevents your assessment, report it.

3. Conflicts of interest may arise in many areas; It can be of an economic, personal, political, religious, or professional nature.

4. If you are working in the same institution as the author, you should not accept the evaluation.

5. If you have a joint work with the author, you should not accept the evaluation.

6. If you have another direct contact with the author, you should not accept the evaluation.

7. Our journal has double-blind refereeing practice. If you have seen the author's name in any field, you should not accept to evaluate the article.

8. If you are working on a similar topic at the same time in the same journal or in another journal, and this subject is still in publication or preparation, you should not accept the article sent to you.

TIME USE
1. Even if you do not accept the evaluation, please send the reason for not accepting it as soon as possible.

2. If you can evaluate the article within the given time, accept to evaluate the article.

3. If your evaluation will be delayed for different reasons and you need a time extension, notify the editor as soon as possible.

4. If you do not find it appropriate to evaluate. You are expected to make referee suggestions to the evaluation of the article, which will not constitute a positive or negative situation.

5. Pay attention to the deadlines given in the evaluation processes.

START PEER REVİEW

1. Review all documents sent to you.

2. Check the plagiarism report, ethical permission certificate, peer reviewer and author instructions.

3. If there is a missing document, ask the editor for the necessary documents and information.

4. Do not contact the author directly without the journal's permission.

5. It is important to understand the scope of the review before we begin.

CONFIDENTIALITY

1. The content of the article should be kept strictly confidential.

2. No information about the content of the article should be disclosed by the peer reviewer anywhere or in any way.

3. Do not involve anyone in the evaluation process of the article.

4. If you need to include another person for article evaluation, make sure to contact the editor and provide the necessary permissions.

5. Make sure that the names of other people you have evaluated are included in the relevant fields of the journal.

BIAS AND COMPETING INTERESTS

1. It is important that you remain neutral with regard to the religion, nationality, gender, political opinion, or other characteristics of the author (s).

2. If you encounter any situation that prevents you from presenting an objective evaluation, report it to the journal and ask for an opinion.

3. While waiting for an opinion, never read the relevant article and its documents.

4. During the article evaluation process, if you notice that you do not have the expertise to evaluate the article, inform the journal as soon as possible.

5. In the case of double-blind peer reviewering, if you suspect the identity of the author / s and this situation causes competition or conflict of interest, report it to the journal immediately.

SUSPECT OF ETHICAL VIOLATION

1. If you encounter a violation or suspicion regarding research or publication ethics, notify the journal.

2. If you notice that the research or article is in another publication. Notify the Journal.

3. It is not recommended to do research on your own.

4. Wait for the journal's advice on a study you consider to be an ethical violation.

5. If the journal asks for your opinion or advice in case of a suspected ethical violation, provide the necessary information.

TRANSFERABILITY OF THE PEER REVIEWER EVALUATION

1. Be aware that the publisher can use your review in other publications. The question of whether there is such a policy.

2. If the publisher shares your assessment with the contracted index or journal archives, get information about it.

3. Our journal conveys your evaluation to TRdizin, ODIS, EYDES in terms of publication policy and affiliated institutions.

4. If a previously rejected article from another journal has been sent to you with a new journal for evaluation, accept to evaluate the incoming article because the criteria of each journal are different and the article may change due to the review.

5. In terms of efficiency and transparency, you should clearly submit your new review of the article you previously reviewed to the new journal with the notes from your previous review.

REPORT PREPARING

FORMAT

1. Use the journal's evaluation form for the evaluation report.

2.Use objective and constructive language in the assessment.

3. Make suggestions for the author / s to improve their articles.

4. Support your suggestions with resources.

5. Be professional in your assessment.

6. Avoid making provocative, insulting, personal comments, and unfounded accusations.

FEEDBACK

1. Know that your evaluation is important so that the editor knows the strengths and weaknesses of the article and makes a fair and impartial decision.

2. Our journal has special evaluation message fields that can be seen by both the editor and the author. If necessary, you can submit your statement evaluations here.

3. Our journal has major revision, minor revision, acceptance, and rejection areas. You can choose one of them.

4. Your comments and assessments should be consistent with your rejection, revision, or acceptance assessment.

5. If you have not reviewed the entire article, please indicate which sections you have reviewed.

6. We ensure that the suggestions and evaluations you submit to the editor and the author are consistent.

7. Most of the evaluations to be made in the article should be in the section that the author will see.

8. Opinions to be written to the editor should not contain incriminating and insulting content towards the author, as the authors cannot see them.

LANGUAGE AND STYLE

1. Do not change the style of the article by thinking that the article belongs to an author. Do not write in your own preferred style

2. Offer language and style changes as suggestions for article comprehensibility.

3. Considering that the author or authors write articles in their own language, report the language problems and sensitivities about the articles written in a different language in an appropriate language.

SUGGESTIONS

1. It is the duty of the peer reviewer to evaluate the quality and content of the article they accept.

2. If the study is unclear due to incomplete analyzes, the reviewer should report which analyzes are missing.

3. It is not the responsibility of the assessor to take the study further than its current scope.

4. Explain that additional research (if any) is required to support the claims made in the article reviewed and which ones will expand and strengthen the research.

ACCOUNTABILITY

1. If you do not have permission from the journal to include someone else, prepare the report yourself.

2. Avoid making unfair or negative comments and unfair criticism of any competitor's work.

3. Do not ask the author to cite his or his friend's work, just to increase the number of citations.

4. Citation proposals should be based on academic or technological reasons.

5. Avoid procedures that will delay the evaluation process of the article by asking for unnecessary information and documents.

6. If you are going to evaluate an article as an editor, do it transparently and impartially.

CONSIDERATIONS AFTER THE EVALUATION

1. If the article you have evaluated is sent to you for re-review with a revision request, if possible, do so.

2. In the event of contacting a journal on matters relating to your review, it is helpful to respond promptly and provide the necessary information.

3. Similarly, contact the journal if, after submitting your review, anything relevant reveals that might affect your original feedback and recommendations.

4. Continue to respect the confidential nature of the review process and do not reveal the details of the article after peer review unless permission from the author and journal.

REFEREE REVIEWS AND CONSULTANCY

1.Search and participate in relevant training for refereeing and consulting

2. Offer consultancy to early career researchers while learning the peer-reviewing processes.

3. Those who want to include their students or interns in the peer-reviewing evaluation process should obtain permission from the journal and respect the journal's decision.

4. If the article is reviewed by a student under the guidance of an advisor, it should be stated in this report.

5. If you have been given the reviews of other peer-reviewing by the journal, reading these reviews will help you present your opinions to give you a better understanding of the topic and the editor's decision.

6. There are many programs and printed materials for referee evaluations. Consult these to improve yourself.