Article Evaluation Policy: Double-Blind ReviewingInternational Journal of Economics, Politics, Humanities & Social Sciences – IJEPHSS (e-ISSN: 2636-8137) article evaluation process is carried out through the Dergipark system. In order to evaluate an article sent from the system, the following steps must be followed:
1. Log into by entering your user name and password.
2. Click on International Journal of Economics, Politics, Humanities & Social Sciences on the upper menu.
3. Click on “Articles Submitted” on the left.
4. You will now see the title and status of the article you have been requested to evaluavate. Click on the name of the article.
5. On the new page that appears you will find information concerning the article. At the bottom there is a question as to whether or not you accept to review the article. To accept, click on “I would like to review the article” in the green-shaded area.
6. Once you accept to make a review, you can download the Article file. You can also review the article by using the evaluation form that will appear on the same page. After the evaluation has been accepted, you can download the article file by clicking on the “Evaluation Version” in the dialogue section. You can evaluate the article by clicking the “Fill and Send Form” link on the same page. Note: “The Online Reviewer Form” opens seamlessly on CHROME browser; but, error can occur due to security settings on EXPLORER.
7. Once you fill the whole form and your evaluation is completed, click on “Save and Finish”.
8. If you have file that might be edited, you can upload to the system from the “ADD/SEND FILE” section.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
• Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias that may exist and take this into account when reviewing a manuscript. The reviewer must clearly express his/her evaluations supporting his/her decision.
• Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with the opportunity to improve the article. In this respect, a reviewer who feels inadequate to review an article or who thinks that he will not be able to complete the review in a short time should not accept the reviewer invitation.
• Confidentiality: All articles arriving at the journal for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or contact the authors directly. The information contained in the study should not be used by a reviewer in his or her own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
• Sensitivity to Research and Publication Ethics Violations: Reviewers should be careful about possible ethical issues in the article and report them to the editor.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review an article with possible conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with the authors or the institutions to which the articles are affiliated.
• Request for Citation to the Reviewer: If a reviewer recommends that an author include references to the reviewer’s (or their collaborators’) work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the reviewer’s citation count or increase the visibility of their work.
The Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and reviewers. It has full authority to appoint reviewers. The evaluations of the reviewers should be objective. During the review process, the reviewers are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following points:
1) Does the article contain new and important information?
2) Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article?
3) Is the method coherent and clearly defined?
4) Are the interpretations and conclusions made proven by the findings?
5) Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
6) Is the language quality sufficient?
Reviewers must give one of the answers Yes – No – With Doubts to the questions asked in their evaluations. Reviewers do not need to answer Yes to all questions for the article to be published. However, in the evaluation form, the author is requested to justify his/her suggestions other than these, especially regarding the parts where a With-Doubts or No response is given, with an explanation of at least 150 words in the “Note to the Author” section.
After completing the evaluation form, the reviewers can make the following decisions:
– Major changes are required in the article (Major Revision).
– A small number of corrections are required in the manuscript (Minor Revision).
– The article is not suitable for publication (Rejection).
– The article can be published in its current form (Acceptance).
If one of the reviewer reports is Acceptance and the other is Rejection, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. A single reviewer report is sufficient to reject the manuscript, but at least two reviewer reports are required to be accepted. If one of the reviewer reports is “Acceptance” or “Minor Revision” and the other is “Major Revision” and the editor’s opinion is in favour of accepting the article, the study is sent again to the same reviewer after the author makes the corrections. Depending on the opinion of the reviewer who has the Major Revision report, the article may be rejected or sent to the 3rd reviewer.
Reviewers can contact the editor via the DergiPark messages section for further guidance or to raise suspicion of any violations. The correspondence here is not visible to the authors.
Data of articles based on field research or data analysis may be requested from the editor by the reviewer for a sound evaluation of the analysis in the article. The journal editor contacts the author and forwards the data to the reviewer.
Reviewers should not have any conflict of interest regarding the research, authors and/or research funders. If a conflict of interest is anticipated, the reviewer must 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 case of conflicts of interest that may arise.
Reviewers cannot benefit from the data of the articles they review before publication or share this data with others.
The names of the reviewers who evaluate in the journal are not disclosed/published.
Reviewers must ensure that all information regarding submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published, and if they notice any copyright infringement or plagiarism on the part of the author, they must report it to the editor.
If the reviewer does not feel qualified about the subject of the article or does not seem able to provide timely feedback, he/she should inform the editor of this situation and ask not to include him/her in the reviewer process.
During the evaluation process, the editor clearly states that the articles sent to the reviewers for review are the private property of the authors and that this is a privileged communication. Reviewers and editorial board members cannot discuss articles with other people. Care should be taken to keep the identity of the reviewers confidential.
In case of any problems that may arise regarding the arbitration process, you can contact us via the e-mail address firstname.lastname@example.org.