Review Process

  • Two peer reviewers will review each article and send comments as well as their verdicts to the chief editor. The papers will be blind-copied to the reviewers as a standard practice to ensure objectivity. The members of the editorial board will consider for publication those articles that were recommended for publication after minor corrections have been effected.
  • Reviewers could independently also give a unanimous verdict not to accept a paper. In this case no further revisions will be required from the authors. A letter of rejection will be communicated without delay so that authors of such papers could look for alternative publication sources.
  • Where the verdict is to accept after major corrections, such articles will pass through another round of peer review and publication may be so delayed. Therefore, authors are requested to properly focus and edit their papers before submitting, in addition to other important requirements as mentioned in the previous sections of this guide.
  •  

  • Ethical Responsibilities of the Reviewer(s)

    The peer-review process is crucial to academic publishing. It helps editors make editorial decisions. The following qualities are expected from JEAR reviewers:

    • Promptness

    Reviewer can accept or reject the review request within the time given to it. If the reviewer does not respond to a review request within 7 days, a reminder will be sent via e-mail. During this period, he/she accepts or refuses to be a reviewer. If no response is received within 3 days after the reminder, the appointment of the review will be cancelled. A new reviewer is appointed. The reviewer who thinks that he/she will not be able to complete the reviewing within the time given to him/her or who feels inadequate to evaluate an article manuscript sent to him/her, should immediately reject the invitation to review and inform the field editor or chief editor.

    • Confidentiality

    All articles accepted for peer review should be considered confidential. It should not be shown to others or discussed with others by the reviewer. This condition also applies to reviewers who decline the invitation to review the manuscript.

    • Objectivity Standards

     Reviewer reviews should be done objectively. The issues identified should be clearly stated with supporting implications. Thus, the report written by the reviewer should help the author(s) to improve their articles.

    • Acceptance of Resources

    Reviewers should indicate in their report if there are published studies that are not cited by the author(s) but will help the author(s) improve their article. The author(s) should be asked to cite these studies. A reviewer should also notify the editor-in-chief or field editor if he or she detects any significant similarity or overlap between the article under review and any other work (published or unpublished) of which he or she has personal knowledge.

    • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

     Reviewers who have conflicts of interest arising from competition, partnership or other personal and professional relationships and affiliations with any author, company or institution in connection with the work described in the content of the article are required to report this situation to the editor-in-chief or field editor and, if necessary, leave the reviewing position according to the editor's decision.

    Ethical Responsibilities of the Editor(s)

    Editors should review articles only if the article complies with the scope and publication policy of the journal, compliance with the Journal Article Template, use of academic style, originality, spelling and language, plagiarism control, and etc. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over all editorial content of the journal and the timing of its publication.

    • Confidentiality

    The Editor-in-Chief and field editors will not disclose any information about the manuscripts submitted to the journal to anyone other than the relevant author(s), reviewers, or potential reviewers.

    • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

     The editor-in-chief, field editors, editorial and advisory board member(s) consulted for the article cannot use unpublished material revealed in a submitted article for their own research purposes without the express written consent of the author(s). The information obtained from the submitted manuscripts will be kept confidential by the Editor-in-Chief, field editors and members of the editorial and advisory board and will not be shared with third parties for their own research projects or for personal gain in any way. Editors or anyone from the editorial staff who has any relationship (positive or negative) with the author(s) will not be part of the review, acceptance and publication process of this manuscript. If this person is the Editor-in-Chief, he/she will appoint another editor to the article and will not interfere with the process.

    • Publication Decisions

    The article is taken into the review evaluation process by the relevant field editor to be assigned by the editor-in-chief. Who will be appointed as a reviewer is determined by taking the opinion of the relevant field editor and, if necessary, the member(s) of the relevant publication and advisory board. Reviewers are assigned by the field editor. All manuscripts submitted for publication are subject to peer review by at least two reviewer who are experts in their fields. The article is evaluated in terms of its compliance with the scope of the journal and its publication policy, its compliance with the Journal Article Template, its use of academic style, originality, its importance for researchers and readers, spelling and language, not being libellous, copyright infringement, plagiarism control, etc., and incoming review reports, then publication decision is made. The Editor-in-Chief may meet with the field editor or reviewers while making the publication decision.

    • Participation and Cooperation in Investigations

    When there is any complaint (plagiarism, detection of republishing of an article that was previously published elsewhere, excluding an author who contributed to the article and submitting the article for publication to the journal, publication by the researcher and/or scholar using data without the knowledge of the project coordinator in articles produced from the project, etc.), all unethical publishing behavior reported regarding a manuscript or published article will be reviewed, even if it occurs years after publication. If the editors or someone outside of the journal organization detects a bad conduct, it should be brought to the attention of the editor-in-chief. Claims without evidence will not be considered. If there is evidence, the accused person will be contacted by the Chief Editor and given a chance to justify his/her behavior. If the unwanted behavior is not intentional and can be corrected, the person wil be given a chance to correct it. If evidence-based unethical behavior is intentional, the person in question, whether it is an author, a reviewer or a member of editorial staff and a member of the journal’s editorial and advisory board, will no longer be a part of the Journal. If he/she is an author and/or reviewer, future works will not be accepted. If this person is part of the editorial and advisory board or editorial staff, they will be removed from the staff. If the unethical behavior has legal consequences, proper authorities will be informed. If the ethical concern is found to be well-founded during the investigation, a statement on the subject will be published in the journal. If the ethical violation is finalized at the end of the investigation, the article will be removed from publication.