Guide for Reviewers

To evaluate an article sent from the system, follow the steps below:

• Login with your ID and password.
• Enter the Journal Panel of Online Journal Of Music Sciences from My Journals section.
• Log in to the reviewer panel.
• Click the title of the article which be appointed for peer review by you from the new invitation section.
• Acceptance or denial of the peer review will ask to you in the page that will pop-up.
For the accept of peer review please click the “Accept the Review” that in the green section.
• You will see the full article in the “Documents” after accept review.
• After reviewing the article, please fill the review form in the “Reviews” section. Upload the review file if there is.
• Lastly click the button “Send the Review” that spotting right side of the page.

Peer Reviewing Processes

• Reviewer, must take into account after accept peer reviewing on the system “Responsibilities of reviewer and ethical principles to be followed” and “Reviewing Processes”.
• Reviewers should only accept reviewing of articles for which they have the necessary expertise to perform an appropriate review, can respect the confidentiality of blind peer review, and keep the details of the article confidential at all times.
• Reviewers invited for article review are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the review within 7 days. The reviewer who does not make a decision at the end of this period is deemed to have rejected the review and the editor appoints a new reviewer. The reviewer who accept the review are expected to express their opinions within 15 days from the date of invitation acceptance. An additional period of up to 7 days is given to the referee who does not complete the review process within this period, if the reviewer requests. If the referee does not request additional time, a new referee can be appointed.
• Each reviewer who accepts the invitation to review is asked to fill in a review form and declare the acceptance or rejection opinions about the article by providing concrete reasons.

In this review form, the referees are expected to express their opinions on the following issues:

1. Title and Content Consistency
2. Language and Expression of the Article
3. Systematic Compliance with Scientific Criteria
4. Defining Scope and Conceptual Framework
5. Subject Integrity
6. Defining the Problem
7. Review of the Previous Studies (Literature Review)
8. Research Method
9. Presentation, Organization and Consistency of Information
10. Critical Perspective
11. Access to Primary Sources
12. Accessing New Scientific Studies
13. Mastery of the Terminology of the Field
14. Originality of Study
15. Getting Results
16. Consistency of the Presented Arguments and Rational Relation to Results
17. Contribution to the Field

The reviewers give an opinion on all of these issues by choosing one of the options Adequate, Not Sufficient, Partially Sufficient, Mostly Sufficient. The referees do not need to approve all of these issues in order for the article to be published. However, in the review form, the suggestions regarding the parts given as Not Sufficient and Partially Sufficient, and other suggestions to the author, should be stated in the "Note to the Author" section.

After completing this form, the referees can take the following decisions:

o Revise Manuscript (Major Revision)
o Revise Manuscript (Minor Revision).
o Reject.
o Accept.

• If one of the peer review reports is positive and the other is negative, the article is sent to a third reviewer.
• A single peer review report is sufficient for the rejection of a manuscript, but at least two peer review reports are required for its acceptance.
• If one of the peer review reports "Accept" or "Minor Revision" and the other "Major Revision" and the editor's opinion favors the acceptance of the article, the manuscript is sent to the same reviewer after the author makes the corrections. The article is rejected or sent to a third peer reviewer depending on the opinion of the reviewer who has issued the report with "Major Revision" requirement.
• The reviewer requesting revision may request to re-evaluate the article after revision. An additional 15 days are given to the reviewer for this evaluation.
• Reviewers can contact the editor via the DergiPark messages section for further guidance or to report any suspected violations. Correspondence here is not seen by the authors.
• The data of the articles based on field research or data analysis can be requested from the editor by the referee for a healthy review of the analyses in the article. The editor of the journal communicates with the author in this regard and transmits the data to the reviewer.
• Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors and/or research funders. When a conflict of interest is foreseen, the referee should contact the editorial board and indicate a possible conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into account in any conflicts of interest that may arise.
• Reviewers cannot make use of the data of the articles they have reviewed before they are published or share this data with others.
• The names of the reviewers who make evaluations in the journal are published.

Update: 10.08.2023