Peer Review

Review at the Review consists of initial screening, peer review, decision, revision, language editing and publication. All stages are carried out and recorded through the Review's online submission system.

The process below applies to academic articles. Student Forum papers are not counted as peer-reviewed articles and appear in the monthly Student Forum Bulletin. After initial screening they are read blind by one assessor, who may be a graduate student or a research assistant.

1. Initial screening

The editor first examines each submitted work. Initial screening checks:

• Whether the work fits the Review's aims and scope
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines and the word limits for the article type
• Whether the similarity rate is within the limits set in the publication principles
• Whether the full text is anonymised and contains no information that identifies the author
• Whether all authors have signed the Author Declaration and License Form
• Whether ethics committee approval is documented, where required

After initial screening, the work is sent to reviewers, returned to the author for correction, or rejected. The target time is 10 days.

2. Peer review

A work that passes initial screening is sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the field. The reviewers are chosen from different institutions. At least one reviewer is from outside the author's institution. Persons who have co-authored with the author in the last three years, or who have any other conflict of interest, are not appointed as reviewers.

Review is double-blind. The author does not know the reviewer's identity, and the reviewer does not know the author's. The process is conducted in confidence.

Reviewers submit their reports within 21 days. On a reasoned request, this period may be extended once by 14 days.

Reviewers use the Review's Reviewer Evaluation Form. The form groups 35 criteria under nine headings and scores each criterion on a five-point scale (1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree):

1. Preliminary assessment: scope, scholarly quality and ethical compliance
2. Scholarly quality and originality
3. Research problem, aim and scope
4. Method
5. Findings, analysis and discussion
6. Conclusion and scholarly contribution
7. Bibliography and citation system
8. Language, structure and presentation
9. Additional criteria: statistics, tables and figures, ethics committee approval, suspected duplicate publication

The total score is a tool that supports the reviewer's decision. Where there is an ethical violation, a serious methodological problem or scientific invalidity, the decision does not rest on the total score alone.

The form has three written fields:

• Note to the author (required): a specific, reasoned and constructive assessment shared with the author
• Note to the editor (required): an assessment seen only by the editor
• Ethics note (optional): suspected conflict of interest, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or an ethics committee or copyright issue

The reviewer selects one of four decisions and states the reasons:

3. Decision

Reviewer reports are sent to the author anonymously. If the editor's decision differs from the reviewers' recommendations, the editor states the reasons in writing.

If the two reviewers disagree, for example one recommends acceptance and the other rejection, a third reviewer is consulted before a decision is made. If a third reviewer cannot be appointed, the section editor evaluates the work scientifically and records the reasons for the decision.

4. Revision

When revision is requested, the author makes only the changes requested by the reviewers and the editor. Changes are marked in the text in colour or as tracked changes. The author also uploads a response letter showing how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

The revision period is 15 days for a minor revision and 30 days for a major revision. A work not revised within this period is considered withdrawn unless the author has requested an extension.

The revised work is examined again by the editor and, where the reviewer report so states, by the relevant reviewer. A work may go through no more than two rounds of revision.

5. Language editing

An accepted work is checked by the Review's Turkish and English language editors. Further corrections may be requested from the author if needed. Language corrections are checked again and approved.

6. Publication

A work that has completed scholarly, technical and language review is typeset. The author proofreads the typeset PDF within three days. Only typesetting errors are corrected at this stage.

The approved work is published in the next available issue. The first page of the work shows the dates of submission, acceptance and publication, the authors' institutions, contact details and ORCID iDs.

7. Target times

These times are targets. They may be longer for reasons such as difficulty in finding reviewers. In that case the author is informed.

8. Retention of records

Reviewer reports and review records are kept for at least five years from the date of publication or rejection.

9. Works by board members

Works by members of the editorial board and the advisory board are reviewed through an independent process in which the member takes no part at any stage. Another editor handles these works.

10. Acknowledgement of reviewers

Reviewers are not paid. Reviewers who request it receive a document confirming that they have reviewed for the Review.