Please follow the steps below to review an article submitted through the system:
- Log in to the Manuscript Handling System using your username and password.
- Click on the “Reviewer” tab in the top menu.
- On the reviewer page, select “Articles” (or “Submissions”).
- The article assigned to you for review will be listed with its title and current status. Click the magnifying glass icon located under the “Show” column on the left-hand side.
- A new page will open displaying the article’s information, along with its abstracts in both English and Turkish. At the bottom of this page, you will be asked whether you agree to review the article. To proceed, click “I would like to review the article” in the green-shaded area.
- Upon accepting the review assignment, you will gain access to download the manuscript file. An evaluation form will also appear on the same page for submitting your review.
- If you begin filling out the evaluation form but are unable to complete it in one session, you may click “Save” to preserve your progress and return later to complete the remaining sections.
- Once your evaluation is complete, click “Save and Finish” to submit your review.
For any queries regarding the system, please contact: mahmutpolatcan78@gmail.com
Overview
The Eurasian Journal of Humanities Research publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed research articles from all areas of the social sciences and humanities. Accordingly, we seek submissions that go beyond mere correctness; they must provide substantial contributions to their respective fields. We kindly ask reviewers to keep this standard in mind when assessing articles.
Invitation to Review an Article
You will receive an email invitation containing the manuscript title, abstract, authors’ names, response links, and a deadline for submitting your review. When considering the invitation, please assess both your availability and whether the manuscript’s subject aligns with your area of expertise. Additionally, evaluate any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with our peer review policy. Kindly confirm your willingness to review at your earliest convenience to avoid unnecessary delays for the authors.
You can respond directly via the email without logging into the system—simply click the appropriate invitation response link.
If you agree to review but require additional time, please contact the journal to request an extension. A full-text PDF of the manuscript can also be provided upon request to help you decide. If you are unable to accept the invitation, we would appreciate it if you could suggest an alternative reviewer. If you are unavailable for an extended period or prefer not to receive future invitations, please indicate this in your decline response so we may update your reviewer profile.
Agreeing to Review an Article
Upon clicking the ‘Agreed’ link in the invitation email, you will receive a follow-up email containing a direct link to the manuscript’s full PDF and the referee report form, along with the deadline for your review. Alternatively, you may access these documents by logging into your reviewer dashboard. Should you need an extension, please contact the journal directly.
Reporting on an Article
If you have not acted as a referee before we recommend that you consult our 'Introduction to refereeing' guide. The report form includes a quality assessment section, a question section, a recommendation section, a box to insert confidential comments intended for the Editors only, and a separate box for comments that will be sent to the author. You may also upload a file containing your comments. Please remember to use appropriate language in your comments for the author. There is no need to mention minor grammatical errors in your report, but listing errors in formulae or notation, or typographical errors which influence scientific rigour, is very valuable. The buttons below the article title on the score sheet allow you to directly view the PDF, supplementary data or the abstract. Specific guidelines on completing and submitting your report are also available via the instructions tab.
Quality Assessment
You will be asked to rate the paper based on:
- Originality: Is the work novel and relevant? Does it make a significant contribution to existing literature? Is it likely to be cited?
- Scientific Rigor: Is the study methodologically sound? Are the arguments well-supported by the results?
- Significance: What impact will this paper have on the field? Why is it important?
Preparing Report
Please address the following areas:
Scientific Quality
- Is the paper methodologically robust, scientifically accurate, and well-supported?
- Does it offer new, original contributions to the field?
- Is the work timely and of potential impact?
- Has the author cited the most recent and relevant literature?
Presentation
- Is the title appropriate and reflective of the content?
- Is the paper clearly written and well-structured? (Note: grammar will be edited upon acceptance.)
- Does the abstract summarize the essential information?
- Can the manuscript be shortened without losing clarity? If so, suggest specific sections.
- Are the figures and tables clear, well-captioned, and essential?
- Does the conclusion effectively summarize the main findings and their significance?
Recommendation
At the end of your report, you will be asked to provide a recommendation, supported by your written evaluation. If major revisions are required, the paper should be rejected and resubmitted as a new submission once revised.
Written Comments
Reviewers are asked to provide evidence-based, constructive feedback focusing on the originality, significance, and scientific validity of the work. This feedback is essential in evaluating the paper’s suitability and ensuring the author receives valuable guidance. While a full summary is not required, concise, meaningful commentary is strongly encouraged.If conflicting reviews are received, we may consult a senior referee or editorial board member to adjudicate. You will be informed if your recommendation is overruled. Upon request, we are happy to provide you with an anonymous copy of the other referee's report for your reference.
Revision Stage
Depending on your recommendation, we may invite you to review a revised version of the manuscript. In such cases, you will be expected to review both the author’s response to your original comments and the revised manuscript to determine if your concerns have been addressed. Please note:
- Do not request new changes at this stage that were not mentioned in your original report.
- If your concerns remain unaddressed, check the ‘Unsatisfactory Revision’ box and explain the unresolved issues.
- The review process typically does not exceed one round of revisions, except for minor corrections.
- Regardless of whether you are invited to review the revision, we will inform you of the final decision.
- Upon request, anonymized reports from other reviewers can be shared for your reference.
Acknowledgement
You will receive a confirmation email once your review is submitted, whether for the original or revised manuscript. We sincerely thank you for your valuable contribution. We strive to ensure a smooth review experience and welcome any suggestions for improving our processes. Should you require formal confirmation of your review for academic or professional purposes, please contact the journal directly.