|  ISSN: 2757-6116

Notes for the Reviewers

Reviewers’ Ethical Responsibilities
The double-blind review process adopted by JIRTE has a direct influence on the publication quality. This process enables the editors to ensure confidentiality through objective and independent review. Through the double-blind review process, the reviewers do not contact the authors directly, and the reviews and comments are conveyed through the journal management system. In this process, the reviewer views the evaluation forms and full texts are sent to the author(s) by the editor. Therefore, the reviewers assessing the manuscripts sent to JIRTE are expected to bear the following ethical responsibilities:
Reviewers must
  • only accept those manuscripts produced in their subject area.
  • review in an unbiased and confidential manner.
  • if they think that there is a conflict of interest between them and the author(s) of the manuscript, inform the editor of the journal as early as possible.
  • after the process of reviewing, dispose of the manuscripts they have reviewed in accordance with the principle of confidentiality.
  • A reviewer can only use the published version of the manuscripts she/he has reviewed beforehand.
  • review the manuscript objectively and only in terms of its content and ensure that any issue like nationality, gender, religious and political beliefs, and economic apprehension do not influence the process of reviewing.
  • review the manuscript in a constructive and kind tone, avoid making personal comments including hostility, slander, and insult.
  • review the manuscript they have agreed to review on time and in accordance with the ethical rules stated above.
The Selection of the Reviewers
  • Various factors influence the process of selecting a reviewer to assess a manuscript sent to JIRTE. Experience and expertise of the reviewer, the relevance of her/his study area, the collective experience of the Editor, and the reviewer in previous reviewing processes are some of those factors determining reviewer selection.
  • If the authors asked the Editor not to send their manuscript to certain reviewers due to conflict of interest, the Editor may not appoint those persons as reviewers.
  • The list of the reviewers continuously revised and updated in each published issue.
The Duties of the Reviewers
  • The reviewers are expected to either accept or decline the invitation to review sent by the Editor or one of the Field Editors of the JIRTE within seven days. After accepting a review invitation, the reviewers are supposed to complete their review process and upload the relevant files in JIRTE’s journal management system within 20 days.
  • If they think that they would not review the manuscript fairly because of the conflict of interest, they have to inform the Editor that they would not be able to review the given manuscript.
  • The reviewers should read the invitation letter/e-mail sent by the Editor carefully as the Editor may ask a special favor from the reviewer, such as asking the reviewer to review only the methods section of the manuscript.
  • If the reviewers have received any help from other persons, they should inform the Editor and give the names of those helping them. The Editorial Board of JIRTE believes that it is a requirement of publication ethics to include the names of those persons helping the reviewers in the list of reviewers.
Reporting of the Reviews
  • It is expected that the review reports should focus on these issues;
    • Whether the manuscript genuinely contributes to the field of study?
    • Whether the manuscript scientifically up to date?
  • The review reports should be written in a critical and objective manner.
  • The reviewers are expected to focus on the text they assess and to avoid referring to the inabilities or inadequacies of the author(s). 
  • The reviewers are expected not only to fill in the manuscript evaluation form as putting √ to appropriate boxes but also to write down the inadequacies, deficiencies, problems and negative aspects they have detected in the assigned manuscript as well as justifying their statements in detail through highlighting the examples from the manuscript itself.
  • The Editor and the relevant Field Editor has the right to intervene and change the reviewers’ reports if they see that these reports include typing errors; rude, improper or insulting expressions, or statements referring to the author(s) as inadequate or inefficient.  
Conflict of Interest
  • Due to the conflict of interest, the authors may ask the Editor to not assign certain people as reviewers.
  • Besides;
    • Persons with whom the author(s) has/have shared publication(s) previously,
    • Persons who helped the author(s) in reading drafts of the given manuscript,
    • Persons who experienced problems with the author(s) beforehand,
    • Persons who may financially benefit from the publication of the given manuscript,
    • Persons working in the same institution (departments) with the author(s)  
would not be selected as reviewers, unless there is not any other choice.
  • Because the Editor may not be aware of all the above-given situations, the reviewers are expected to inform the Editor, if there is a problem preventing them to do a fair review.
Publication Policy and Other Ethical Issues
  • Even though the Editor tries hard to specify ethical issues and other problems breaching the publication policy of JIRTE in relation to a manuscript in process, she/he may not be able to be aware of everything. Hence, it is crucial that the reviewers inform the Editor if they come across any problem.
  • The authors of those manuscripts/papers reporting the results of the research conducted with the involvement of human participants or include data obtained directly or indirectly from human beings are supposed to provide an Ethical Committee Approval obtained from their institution. The date and document number of the Ethical Committee Approval must be stated in the manuscript.
  • The authors are also expected to remark that they followed the rules and conduct of research and publication ethics.
  • While drafting manuscripts based on their theses or dissertations, the authors are expected to report the entire thesis or dissertation not slicing it or partly reporting the research and data included.  
  • The authors are also supposed to state the ratio of each researcher's contribution in addition to acknowledgments to funders and the statement of the conflict of interest at the end of the manuscript.
  • After the acceptance of the manuscript for publication, all authors are invited to fill in and sign “the Copyrights Transfer Form”.
Providing Feedback for Reviewers
  • The final version of the papers accepted for publication is only sent to those reviewers previously stating that they would like to see the manuscript again.
  • A reviewer may see that the manuscript she/he reviewed does not reflect her/his critics and viewpoints provided within the reviewing processes. It is possible that other reviewers may have provided different perspectives and the Editor taking those perspectives into account. In this kind of situation, the reports of other reviewers might be sent.
  • In consideration of the review reports, the Editor may decide to follow one of the way given below:
    • May accept the manuscript for publication with the requirement of partly/ extensive revision,
    • May commence another round of reviewing and ask the authors to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ reports,
    • May decline of the manuscript.
  • The reviewers have a right to state in their reports that the manuscript deserves acceptance for publication or rejection. In fact, it is the Editor to decide whether the manuscript is to be published or declined in consideration with the power and the justification of the arguments provided by the reviewers and authors. 

2.948 times read.