Referee Guide
The in-depth examination phase is one of the indispensable components of scientific progress. Evaluations made by independent scientists serve as a recommendation to the editorial board of Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences to publish their best articles. Articles are subjected to a completely confidential evaluation process. The writers and readers of Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences are international, and the referees who evaluate the articles are carefully selected from the world-class academic community. The names of the reviewers are kept confidential and may be known only to the editors, who must still remain confidential. Applications for publication are evaluated impartially, regardless of the authors' race, gender, religious affiliation, ethnic origin, nationality, political orientation, age, or reputation.
The referee staff of the Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences which evaluates the works is selected from among the experts on the subjects mentioned in the articles. The reasons for their selection are due to their objectivity and scientific knowledge. All those who will make the evaluations are informed about what Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences expects from them. Each of them is asked to fill in an evaluation form and, if necessary, to prepare a separate report for each. People who have a difference of opinion on the subject of any article cannot evaluate that article. (For example, people who have contributed to or collaborated with one of the authors, or who are unable to provide an objective opinion on the work; who are also an employee or competitor of an institution whose work is being reviewed, and who have specific political and ideological views). These people should contact the editorial board and state a possible difference of opinion/conflict of interest before the article is submitted to the referee committee.
The in-depth examination phase is one of the indispensable components of scientific progress. Evaluations made by independent scientists serve as a recommendation to the editorial board of Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences to publish their best articles. Articles are subjected to a completely confidential evaluation process. The writers and readers of Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences are international, and the referees who evaluate the articles are carefully selected from the world-class academic community. The names of the reviewers are kept confidential and may be known only to the editors, who must still remain confidential. Applications for publication are evaluated impartially, regardless of the authors' race, gender, religious affiliation, ethnic origin, nationality, political orientation, age, or reputation.
The referee staff of the Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences, which evaluates the works, is selected from among the experts on the subjects mentioned in the articles. The reasons for their selection are due to their objectivity and scientific knowledge. All those who will make the evaluations are informed about what Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences expects from them. Each of them is asked to fill in an evaluation form and, if necessary, to prepare a separate report for each. People who have a difference of opinion on the subject of any article cannot evaluate that article. (For example, people who have contributed to or collaborated with one of the authors, or who are unable to provide an objective opinion on the work; who are also an employee or competitor of an institution whose work is being reviewed, and who have specific political and ideological views). These people should contact the editorial board and state a possible difference of opinion/conflict of interest before the article is submitted to the referee committee.
Referee reviews are expected to be professional, honest, tactful, punctual, and constructive. The essential elements required for a high-quality assessment are:
- The referees should identify the weak and strong aspects of the study organization and methodology and express their comments on them.
- Reviewers should accurately and constructively criticize the author's ability to handle data (taking into account that data may be limited).
- Reviewers should identify the weaknesses and strengths of the study as a written communication tool, regardless of its composition, methodology, results and operation.
- Reviewers should express their opinions about whether the study has content that may raise ethical concerns or whether it has low scientific standards.
- Reviewers should provide helpful advice to authors so that the work can be improved. Reviewers' criticisms should be constructive and professional towards the author.
- Evaluation should provide the editor with the right perspective and content so that he or she can decide on acceptance of the work (and/or should be revised).
- Reviewers are expected to identify unused studies and use citations to indicate which elements of the work have been cited previously. Reviewers should also report striking similarities between the reviewed text and any work published in another journal or submitted to Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences.
- Referees are sensitively expected not to contact the author directly. In many cases, the opinion of two experts will be sought; however, the opinions of these experts may not be the same as the final decision of the editor on the article. Receiving advice, even partial, from a reviewer may give authors the wrong impression of the review process.
- Referees invited for article evaluation are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the evaluation within 7 (seven) calendar days. The referee who does not make a decision at the end of this period is deemed to have rejected the evaluation and the field editor appoints a new referee. The referees who accept the evaluation are expected to express their opinions within 15 (fifteen) calendar days from the date of invitation acceptance. If the referee does not complete the evaluation process within this period, an additional period of 7 (seven) days is given. If the referee does not request additional time, a new referee is appointed.
- Privacy
- Information and ideas obtained as a referee during the evaluation process are kept confidential and cannot be used as an advantage in any way. Since the application is a privileged notification, it is kept completely confidential.
- The application cannot be taken or copied by the referees. In addition, reviewers cannot share the work with their colleagues without the written permission of the editor.
- Reviewers and editors cannot benefit from their interpretation of the data before the publication of the work, unless they have the special permission of the authors. Reviewers and editors cannot benefit from the topics of the study professionally or personally. In addition, they cannot write edits or comments on the study.
- In case of any disagreement/conflict of interest, the referees should notify the editorial board
- Referees should notify Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences if they are unable to review any work, or if they can do so with some delay.
- Reviewers should objectively evaluate the quality of the work in question, make clear, unbiased and constructive criticisms, and avoid personal criticism of the authors. There is no harm in letting the authors know/see the comments made by the referees. Therefore, the opinions of the referees should be clearly stated and supported so that the authors can understand the basis of the comments and evaluations.
- If the referees suspect any violation, they can easily report it to the editor, and at the same time, they should never share the situation with other people unless they receive a notification from Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences that they can do so.
Our reviewers should follow the steps below to evaluate an article sent from the system:
1. Log in to the DergiPark panel with your username and password.
2. Select “Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences” from the journals listed in your panel.
3. Access the article assigned to you by clicking on the “New Invitation” tab from the referee panel.
4. Accept the invitation to referee.
5. Enter the article information by clicking the “Show” button on the right of the relevant article.
6. Click on the “Files” tab and download the article to your computer by clicking the “Download” icon to the right of the article under the “Article Files” heading.
7. On the article, record your evaluation notes. For this, you should first click on the “Review” tab in the Word document and then activate the “Track Changes” button. If necessary, the "New Description" button can be used. In addition, when you select the relevant text and then right-click, a description can be added from the menu.
8. After completing your evaluation, change the file name to “Referee Report”. Then delete the author information from the file. It is important that you do this process so that the author does not reach the referee information. (“File-Info-Check Issues Examine Document -Check- Document properties and Personal Information- Remove All” or “Tools” – Protect Document – Privacy- Registrant- Personal Information- Remove From This File”).
9. After logging in to the relevant article from the panel, click on the “Files” tab and upload your report by using the “Add New File” button. Let the author see the article.
10. In the article panel, click on the "Evaluation" tab and fill out the "Article Evaluation Form" at the bottom of the page and complete the process by clicking the “Submit Evaluation” button. After this process, you should see the message “Your transaction completed successfully” at the top of the page. If you have not seen this message, the form has not been sent. Please check if there are any fields in the form that you have not filled in, even though it should be filled. After completing the deficiencies, you can send the form by clicking the “Send Evaluation” button.
11. The “Major Revision” option in the “Suggestion” heading at the end of the form means “I want to see the text again after the corrections I recommend are made”. The “Minor Revision” option means “There are some corrections that I recommend, but I do not want to see the text again after these corrections”. If you have requested a major revision, you will be reassigned to the article as a referee in the next process, at this stage the process explained above is run again in the same way. (In this case, you have to accept the invitation again, review the text and repeat the above steps.) The option “Accept” means that the author is not recommended to edit and the text can be published as it is.
Thank you for your contribution to our journal.
Mevzu – Journal of Social Sciences is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY NC).