Guidelines for Reviewers

REVIEWER EVALUATION GUIDELINES

1. Purpose and Scope

This guideline has been prepared to ensure that the peer review process conducted within our congress is carried out in accordance with scientific, transparent, and ethical principles. It outlines the rules that reviewers and the organizing committee must follow throughout the evaluation process. The peer review process aims to assess the scientific contribution, methodological rigor, and writing quality of the submissions.

2. Principles of the Evaluation Process
1. a. Double-Blind Peer Review:
    • o The identities of both reviewers and authors remain confidential.
    • o This principle ensures that the evaluation process is conducted in an impartial and fair manner.
b. Transparency:
    • o Reviewers' feedback is shared with the authors, and revision processes are explained in detail.
    • o Final decisions are made based on reviewer reports and the evaluation of the organizing committee.
c. Ethics and Impartiality:
    • o Reviewers must avoid any personal or institutional conflicts of interest during the evaluation process.
    • o Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest related to the submissions they evaluate to the organizing committee.
3. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers
a. Scientific Evaluation:
    • o Reviewers must assess the originality, methodological rigor, and scientific contribution of the submissions.
    • o Evaluations should be based on the following criteria:
      • • Originality and innovation.
      • • Accuracy and applicability of the methodology.
      • • Clarity and presentation of findings.
      • • Alignment of the discussion with the literature.
      • • Contribution of the conclusions and recommendations.
    • o The evaluation form provided through the system must be used, and assessments should be made according to the specified criteria. Each criterion should be scored, and detailed feedback should be provided.
2. Feedback:
    • o Reviewers should provide constructive and clear comments and suggestions.
    • o Detailed and concrete explanations should be included to ensure that authors understand the suggested revisions.
3. Timely Submission:
    • o Reviewers must complete their evaluations within the specified timeframe (7 days) set by the organization.
4. Confidentiality:
    • o Reviewers must keep all data and information contained in the submissions confidential and must not share them with third parties.
4. Review Process Workflow
a) Preliminary Evaluation:
    • o Submissions undergo a preliminary review by the organizing committee for format and content compliance.
    • o Submissions that do not adhere to the writing guidelines will not proceed to the peer review stage.
b. Reviewer Assignment:
    • o Each submission is assigned to at least two expert reviewers in the relevant field.
    • o Reviewers must confirm or decline the review invitation within 7 days of receiving the request.
c. Evaluation Criteria:
    • Submissions are evaluated based on the following criteria:
      • Originality
      • Scientific contribution
      • Methodological rigor
      • Accuracy of findings
      • Writing and language quality
d. Decision Types:
    • Reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:
      • Accept: The submission is ready for publication.
      • Minor Revision: Minor changes are required before acceptance.
      • Major Revision: Significant revisions are needed, and re-evaluation is required.
      • Reject: The submission is not suitable for publication.
e. Submission of Reviewer Reports:
    • Reviewer reports are examined by the organizing committee before being shared with the authors.
    • Submissions requiring revision must be revised and resubmitted within the specified timeframe.
5. Compliance with COPE Principles

All ethical processes in our congress are conducted in accordance with the principles of the  Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In this regard, authors, reviewers, and editors have the following ethical responsibilities:

Responsibilities of Authors:
    • Authors must declare that the submitted work is original , has not been previously published elsewhere, and is not under review in another venue.
    • The contributions of all authors must be clearly stated, and individuals who have not contributed to the work should not be included as authors.
    • Any potential conflicts of interest must be explicitly disclosed.
    • Authors must obtain the necessary ethical approvals  for their research and declare that their study complies with ethical guidelines.
Responsibilities of Reviewers:
    • Reviewers must remain impartial throughout the evaluation process and avoid conflicts of interest.
    • They must maintain the confidentiality of the information provided during the review and focus solely on the scientific content of the submission.
    • Reviews should be clear, constructive, and aligned with the academic standards of the congress.
Responsibilities of Editors:
    • Editors are responsible for ensuring that the review process is conducted transparently  and fairly .
    • They must adhere to ethical principles when making final decisions, considering reviewer recommendations.
    • In cases of ethical violations, editors must follow COPE’s decision-making flowcharts and take the necessary actions.
Process Management in Cases of Ethical Violations:
    • If an ethical violation is suspected, the process will be managed following COPE’s recommended decision trees.
    • Ethical violations may include:
      • Plagiarism (partial or complete use of another work without proper citation),
      • Fabrication of data
      • Misleading authorship (adding individuals who did not contribute to the study as authors),
      • Failure to disclose conflicts of interest.
    • If a violation is confirmed, the related submission will be withdrawn, and the author(s) will be informed accordingly.
6. Conditions for Participation in the Peer Review Process
a. Expertise:
    • Reviewers must have expertise and experience in the subject areas of the submissions they evaluate.
b. Acceptance of the Invitation:
    • Reviewers should accept the review invitation only if they have sufficient time and knowledge to conduct a thorough evaluation.
c. Ethical Principles:
    • Reviewers must fully comply with academic and ethical principles throughout the evaluation process.
7. Support Provided to Reviewers
a. Guidelines and Assistance:
    • Detailed technical guidelines are available in the system to help reviewers conduct the evaluation process effectively.
    • o These guidelines can be accessed through the Help Center in the system
b. Acknowledgment:
    • At the end of the congress, reviewers will receive a certificate of appreciation for their contributions.

 

8. Contact Information

For any inquiries regarding the peer review process, please feel free to contact us:

Academicianstudies © 2025 Her Hakkı Saklıdır

Facebook X-twitter Linkedin Youtube Instagram