Reviewer Guide
Considering that Mevlana Medical Sciences Journal aims to publish original and important articles, we ask for referees to help us evaluate the article submissions we receive.
Below are some tips on the article evaluation process, how to become a referee, and how to write a good review. Our referee terms and conditions, based on the COPE Principles, also provide more information on how to conduct objective and constructive refereeing.
Mevlana Medical Sciences Journal adopts a double-blind peer review model.
Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected from experts who have a doctorate and publications in the relevant field of science. Information on experts working at Turkish universities can be accessed on the YÖK Academic website, while information on experts abroad can be accessed on Publons.
Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers
Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively. Referees must be aware of any personal biases they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. The reviewers should clearly state their evaluations supporting their 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 referee who feels inadequate to review an article or who thinks that he/she will not be able to complete the review in a short time should not accept the invitation to review.
Confidentiality: All articles received by the journal for review should be kept confidential. Referees should not share their reviews or information about the article with anyone or contact the authors directly. Information contained in the study should not be used by a referee in his/her research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.
Sensitivity to Violations of Research and Publication Ethics: Referees should be alert to potential ethical issues in the article and report them to the editor.
Conflict of Interest: Referees should not accept to review an article with potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with the authors or the institutions to which the articles are affiliated.
Request for Citations to the Reviewer: If a reviewer suggests that an author include references to the reviewer’s (or their collaborators’) work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons, not to increase the referee’s citation count or visibility of their work. See also Ethical Rules for Reviewers.
Reviewing
Reviewers’ evaluations must be objective. During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following in their evaluations:
Does the article contain new and important information?
Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
Is the methodology comprehensive and clearly described?
Are the interpretations and conclusions substantiated by the findings?
Are there sufficient references to other work in the field?
Is the language quality adequate?
Do the abstracts accurately reflect the content of the article?
Editor's Guide
Editor's Selection
Editors are selected from experts who have a doctorate degree and publications in accordance with the journal's publication scope.
Turkey Editors' Workshop Group
Mevlana Medical Sciences Journal supports editors to communicate with other editors, considering it useful. Our editors are members of the Turkey Editors' Workshop Group.
Editor's Responsibilities
Coordinating the Review Process
The editor must ensure review process is fair, impartial, and timely. Research articles must be reviewed by at least two external reviewers and the editor must seek additional opinions when necessary.
Selection of Reviewers
The editor will select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for appropriate, inclusive, and diverse representation. The editor will follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent reviewers.
Maintaining Confidentiality
The editor must protect the confidentiality of all materials submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers unless otherwise agreed upon with the relevant authors and reviewers. In exceptional cases and consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals as the editor deems necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct. The editor must protect the identities of reviewers. Information in a submitted manuscript must not be used for the editor's research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the review process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
Impartiality
The editor must evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Investigation of Allegations
An editor who finds compelling evidence of an ethical violation must contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to have the article corrected, retracted, or otherwise corrected.
Conflict of Interest
The editor should not participate in decisions regarding manuscripts by the editor or a family member. In addition, such work must be subject to all regular procedures of the journal. The editor must follow the ICMJE guidelines for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.
Decision to Publish
The editor is responsible for reviewing the referee reports and deciding which submitted articles should be published. The editor must comply with the policies set by the Editorial/Management Board.
Correction, Retraction, Publishing Expression of Concern
Editors may consider publishing corrections if minor errors are detected in the published article that do not affect the findings, interpretations, or conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the article in cases of major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. If there is a possibility of research or publication misconduct by the authors, if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable, the authors' institutions did not investigate the incident, or if the possible investigation appears to be unjustified or inconclusive, editors should consider publishing an expression of concern. COPE and ICJME guidelines are taken into account regarding corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern.
