Details of the Reviewer Evaluation Process

    

  • When all authors who want to submit an article for evaluation click the upload article button at https://iccsor.com/index.php/Jatss , they will see the Login or Register button to make a submission.
  • Author(s) first register themselves as authors in the online submission system. Under the registration heading, there are steps to create a profile for the author and the steps to create a password for login.
  • The author who wants to submit an manuscript to the journal does so once. When he/she wants to submit a manuscript for the second time, he/she clicks the Go to Login button, as the author will be registered in the journal system.
  • The corresponding author logs in to the online journal submission system using his/her username and password to upload the manuscript and uploads the manuscript. Journal Open Access system (OJS) provides transparent documentation of all transactions between author(s), journal and reviewer.
  • When a new manuscript is uploaded to the journal system, it is pre-examined by the editor-in-chief and relevant field editor.
  • The editor-in-chief and the field editor review the submitted manuscript without considering the race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, nationality, political opinion, institutional affiliation, religious belief of the author(s).
  • At the pre-evaluation stage, the manuscript's is reviewed from the aspects including compliance with the scope of the journal and its publication policy, compliance with the Journal's Article Template, the use of academic style, its importance for researchers and readers, originality, spelling and language, the article not being libelous, copyright infringement, plagiarism control, etc.
  • At the pre-evaluation stage, articles that do not comply with the scope and publication policy of the journal are rejected.
  • The journal is a member of IThenticate and all manuscripts are scanned for originality through IThenticate software.
  • A manuscript that has problems with any of the criteria listed above, except for the scope and compliance with the publication policy of the journal, is returned to the author by requesting a resubmission.
  • The author can complete the editing and upload the manuscript back to the journal system. In this case, the preliminary examination process is repeated.
  • The manuscript, which passes the controls in the pre-examination process successfully, enters the blind peer-review process. The editor-in-chief or field editor conducts the correspondence with the reviewers. It is the primary preference for the relevant field editor to carry out the correspondence.
  • Manuscript 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. The article is sent to these experts in the field through the journal system for double-blind peer-review, where both the reviewer and the author(s) remain anonymous throughout the process.
  • The journal follows a strict double-blind, peer-review policy. Reviewers do not know the names of the author(s). The author(s) also do not know who has reviewed their article. Any expression that would allow the reviewer to determine the name of the author(s) or the identity of the author(s) will not appear anywhere in the article. Two blind reviewers cannot be working at the same university. In addition, the author(s) and the reviewers cannot be working at the same university.
  • Field editors cannot be reviewers at the same time, they are chosen from among academicians who are experts in their fields and preferably other than members of the editorial and advisory boards. Two blind reviewers are selected for the necessary review and evaluation.
  • Once the reviewers are appointed, they are invited to participate in the review process by sending a notification email. Along with this invitation, all necessary information about the article is sent to the reviewers. Reviewers are asked to log in to the journal website to indicate to the journal whether they will review or not.
  • The reviewer can accept or reject the review request within 7 days. When the reviewer does not respond to a review request within 7 days, a reminder will be sent via e-mail. He/She accepts or refuses to be a reviewer. If no response is received within 3 days after the reminder, the reviewer assignment is cancelled. A new reviewer is appointed in place of the reviewer who does not respond to the reviewer proposal or does not accept reviewering, following the process explained above.
  • Those who accept the reviewering are asked to access the submission, complete the reviewering process, fill out the reviewer form, report the results of their examinations in detail and save their suggestions in the journal system.
  • The time allowed for the reviewering process is 3 weeks, but this period can be changed by the editor to a minimum of 15 days and a maximum of one month.
  • Reviewers can make one of the following suggestions to Editors while completing the peer review process: Accept Submission, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, Resubmit Elsewhere, Decline Submission
  • In addition, a space is provided for the reviewers to write comments that can only be seen by the editor about the article they have reviewed through the journal system.
  • A new reviewer is appointed by following the process explained above, if an Additional Reviewer Evaluation is required instead of the reviewer who accepts the arbitration and does not make his evaluation in due time.
  • After the peer-review, an e-mail, in which the reviewer's evaluations (and if necessary, including the suggestions made by the Editor) is attached, is sent to the author(s) via the journal system.
  • If two reviewers reject the manuscript, the manuscript is rejected.
  • The rejected manuscript is returned to the author(s). If the author(s) thinks that an erroneous or unfair decision has been made, they may request a reconsideration of the decision.
  • The author(s) sends an e-mail to the Editor-in-Chief and explains the grounds for objection to the reviewers' refusal. The explanations to be made by the author(s) are subject to the necessary evaluation.
  • If both reviewers accept the manuscript, the article is published.
  • If one of the reviewers evaluates positively and the other negatively, the manuscript can be sent to a third reviewer or it can be decided to be published by taking the opinion of the relevant field editor.  The editor-in-chief is fully authorized to make the final decision on the issues that are in doubt.
  • If at least one reviewer has requested a revision in the article after the reviewer's review, an e-mail, in which the reviewer's evaluations is attached, is sent to the author(s) through the journal system for correction in line with the suggestions made by the reviewers and the editor,
  • After the manuscript is sent to the author(s) for revision, the author(s) completes the revision within the given 7-day period.
  • The author(s) are requested to submit the text of the manuscript on which they made the changes in a different color and the author's response to reviewer form, to be forwarded to the reviewers when they revise their manuscript in response to the comments of the reviewers. If they do not make the corrections as expected, the article will be rejected.
  • If the reviewer who requested the revision did not want to see the manuscript again, the field editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections and the field editor's positive or negative opinion about the publication is reported to the editor-in-chief. If the opinion of the field editor is positive, the mansucript is accepted.
  • If the reviewer who requested the revision wanted to see the manuscript again, the manuscript is sent to the reviewer who requested the revision of the manuscript and he/she is given 7 days to re-evaluate. If the reviewer does not request revision, the manuscript is accepted.
  • If the reviewer who requested a revision before requests a second revision, after the manuscript is sent to the author (s) for revision a second time, the author (s) completes the revision within the 7-day period given to him/her.
  • If the reviewer who requested the revision wanted to see the manuscript again for the third time, the mansucript is sent to the reviewer who requested the revision of the manuscript and he/she is given 7 days to re-evaluate. If the reviewer does not request revision again, the manuscript is accepted. This process is repeated as long as the reviewer requests revision.