Guidelines for Reviewers
Peer review process is an essential component of the scientific process. Reviews by independent scientists provide advice to the editorial board of Kadim to choose best articles to publish. A double blind reviewing process is counducted.
Kadim is international in authorship and in readership and referees are carefully selected from the worldwide academic community. Referees’ names are kept confidential and may only be disclosed to Editors who are also instructed to maintain confidentiality. Unbiased consideration is given to all manuscripts offered for publication regardless of the race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, age or reputation of the authors.
Reviewing of a manuscript is an important part in the process of publication. Reviewers are asked to make an evaluation and provide recommendations to ensure the scientific quality of the manuscript is on par with our standards.
Guidelines
- After receiving the invitation, the reviewer is requested to intimate their availability to complete the review in the given time.
- Articles are assigned based on the research interests of the reviewer. They can approach the assigned editorial office if the manuscript is beyond their expertise.
- After assigning manuscript reviewer can contact the editorial office if there is any problem regarding time or conflict of interest, based on that the reviewer may extend the deadline or cancel the review assignment.
- The reviewer should have a look at the assigned manuscript, whether the paper fits within the stated scope of the journal or not. Reviewers should not be biassed or partial while reviewing the manuscript.
- They should evaluate the manuscript within the provided timeline in order to facilitate timely completion of the review process.
- During the review process, if you find that the research paper does not fit into the scope of interest, you may intimate the editorial office.
- Reviewers are not entertained to discuss about the paper with the respective author(s).
- We request reviewers not to use the information of the manuscript for their own use and to protect it from any sort of violation.
- Criticism should be presented dispassionately and offensive remarks are not acceptable.
- Confidential remarks to be done and you can advise the editor for acceptance, rejection or modification. Their comments and reviews must never be influenced by the race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, language, origin, gender or any political agencies.
Please follow the steps listed below in order to review an article sent through the system
1. Log into the “Manuscript Handling System” by entering your user name and password.
2. Click “Reviewer” on the upper menu.
3. Click “Articles” (“Submissions”) on the reviewer page.
4. You will now see the title and status of the article you have been requested to review. Click the magnifier icon found under “Show” on the left-hand side.
5. On the new page that appears you will find information concerning the article and its English and Turkish abstracts. At the bottom, there is a question as to whether or not you accept to review the article. To accept, click “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.
7. While filling in the form, if you click “Save” without completing your evaluation, you can return to the form later to complete the remaining sections.
8. Once you fill in the whole form and your evaluation is complete, click “Save and Finish”.
ETHICAL RULES
Choosing Peer Reviewers and Their Duties
Peer reviewers of Kadim are chosen between experts in the scientific topic addressed in the articles. They are selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. All reviewers are informed of Kadim’s expectations. They are expected to fill the evaluation form and prepare a separate report if necessary.
Any person who has a conflict of interest in the subject of the article cannot be a reviewer for that article. Reviewers should contact the editorial office to declare any potential conflicts of interest in advance of refereeing an article (e.g. being a co-worker or collaborator with one of the authors, or being in a position which precludes giving an objective opinion of the work, those working for a company whose product was tested, its competitors, those with special political or ideological agendas).
- Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. The desired major elements of a high-quality review are as follows
• The reviewer should have identified and commented on the major strengths and weaknesses of the study design and methodology.
• The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
• The reviewer should comment on the major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
• The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.
• The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
• The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive and professional.
• The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.
• The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied by the reviewers. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor.
• Reviewers must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.
• Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and inform the editorial board.
• Reviewers must inform the journal if they are unable to review a paper or can do so only with some delay.
• If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so. - Confidentiality: In the review process, information and ideas obtained as a referee is kept confidential and not used for competitive advantage. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and should be kept confidential.
