All submitted manuscripts undergo a strictly confidential peer-review process. The identities of the reviewers are kept anonymous and are known only to the editorial team. Submissions are evaluated impartially, regardless of the authors’ race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, political views, age, or academic reputation.
Reviewers are selected from among experts in the specific field addressed in the manuscript. They are required to complete an evaluation form and, if necessary, provide a separate detailed report. Individuals who have conflicts of interest regarding a manuscript are not permitted to act as reviewers. This includes, but is not limited to, those who have collaborated with the author(s), contributed to the study, are affiliated with a competing institution, or are unable to offer an objective review due to ideological or personal bias. Authors must inform the editorial board of any potential conflict of interest before the manuscript is sent out for review.
Reviewer assessments are expected to be professional, honest, respectful, timely, and constructive.
Key Elements of a High-Quality Review:
Reviewers must primarily assess the manuscript’s methodology.
Regardless of results or topic, reviewers should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the paper as a written medium.
Ethical concerns or indications of low scientific standards should be explicitly addressed.
Reviewers should provide practical suggestions for improving the manuscript. Critiques must be professional and constructive.
The review should provide the editor with a sound basis for making a publication decision (acceptance, revision, or rejection).
Reviewers are expected to identify uncited relevant works and ensure proper attribution where necessary.
Reviewers must not contact the author(s) directly. In most cases, two expert reviewers are consulted; however, the editor’s final decision may differ from reviewers’ recommendations. Even partial suggestions from a reviewer may be misconstrued by the author(s) as indicative of a final outcome.
Timelines:
Reviewers invited to assess a manuscript are expected to respond (accept or decline) within 7 days. If no response is received, the invitation is considered declined, and a new reviewer is assigned.
Upon acceptance, reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations within 15 days. If additional time is required, a 7-day extension may be granted upon request. If the reviewer does not request an extension, a new reviewer will be appointed.
Confidentiality:
All information and ideas obtained during the review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Without written permission from the editor, reviewers may not share manuscripts with colleagues. Reviewers and editors must not use any part of the manuscript’s data, interpretations, or content for professional or personal gain (unless directly relevant to the review) prior to its publication.
Any conflict of interest must be disclosed to the editorial board. Reviewers should promptly inform the editor if they are unable to complete the review or anticipate delays.
Reviewers must evaluate the manuscript with objectivity, provide clear, unbiased, and constructive feedback, and refrain from personal criticism. Reviewer comments may be shared with the author(s), and therefore must be clearly articulated and supported with appropriate rationale.
Reviewer Workflow on the DergiPark System:
Log in to the DergiPark system using your username and password.
From your dashboard, select "İstanbul 29 Mayıs University Journal of the Faculty of Letters".
Click the "New Invitation" tab in the reviewer panel to access the assigned manuscript. (Alternatively, use the direct link provided in the invitation email.)
Accept the review invitation.
Click "Show" next to the relevant manuscript to access manuscript details.
Go to the "Files" tab and click the download icon next to the manuscript under "Article Files" to download it.
Add your comments and notes to the manuscript using the "Track Changes" feature in Word (Review → Track Changes). Use the "New Comment" option as needed.
Rename the file as "Reviewer Report" and remove all personal information from the file (File → Info → Check for Issues → Inspect Document → Remove All Properties and Personal Information).
Upload your review by clicking "New File Upload" under the "Files" tab.
Fill out the "Reviewer Evaluation Form" under the "Evaluation" tab and click "Submit Review". Make sure to see the confirmation message: "Your process has been successfully completed." If this message does not appear, verify that all required fields are filled out.
Final Recommendation Options in the Review Form:
Major Revision: “I would like to review the manuscript again after the recommended substantial revisions are made.”
Minor Revision: “I suggest some minor revisions, but do not require the manuscript to be resubmitted for further review.”
Accept: The manuscript can be published in its current form without further revisions.
If Major Revision is selected, the reviewer will be reassigned to re-evaluate the manuscript following resubmission. The same review process described above will apply, including re-acceptance of the invitation and submission of a new review.