For Reviewers

We used the "Dergipark" management system for article evaluation steps. The article evaluation forms, notes on the text and correction requests are forwarded to the editors via this system.

The editor first evaluates the compliance of an article sent for evaluation with publication ethics and examines the scientific importance, originality, scientific validity of the article and its suitability for the field of the journal, and forwards the article to the editors or reviewers.

The editor is responsible for selecting reviewers from among the academics who have a good command of the subject, keeping the reviewers "blind" to the authors and their institutions, and keeping the authors "blind" to the reviewers unless the reviewer specifically requests it.

Although the reviewers are appointed, if they are not experts in the article, it is expected that they should not accept to evaluate the relevant article.

The reviewers should make their evaluations confidentially. It is expected that positive or negative comments about the article content should not be made before the article is published. Instead, the corrections or recommendations should be prepared in a way that presents the positive and negative features of the article to the Editor.

The reviewers should make an assessment in accordance with the principle of impartiality. If they detect that there is a conflict of interest between the "author-author" or the "author-reviewer" in the articles sent to them, they should only report this to the editor.

We recommend that an article must fulfill the criteria given below to be accepted for publication in ACEM:
1. It does not involve any ethical violation.
2. It has a clear message to be conveyed to the scientific community.
3. It can be read and understood easily.
4. It possesses structural and logical integrity:
--Reasons for doing the study are explained in the Introduction section,
--Experiments, statistics and other analyses are carried out adequately, and described in sufficient detail,
--Conclusion of the article is drawn directly from the findings of the study,
--Conclusion section answers the research question (aim) addressed in the Introduction section,
--Sections of the manuscript, including the abstract, do not contradict with each other. Manuscript has internal consistency.

After reading the manuscript, you are expected to give your comments on the manuscript using the Manuscript Evaluation Form. This form consists of three parts: "Comments to Author and Editor", "Confidential Comments to Editor" and "Recommendation".

In the "Comments to Author and Editor" part, you may freely express your thoughts about the manuscript, the strong and weak aspects of the study, the parts that need to be revised, etc. If you wish, you may mark changes directly on the manuscript file (using the Track Changes mode preferably), and upload this file to be forwarded to the authors. If you believe that the manuscript must not be published, you are expected to give reasons for this. In your crititiques, avoid using offensive language.

In the "Confidential Comments to Editor" part, your comments will not be revealed to authors.

In the "Recommendation" part, you must choose one of the options: Accept, Reject, Major Revision or Minor Revision. If you recommend Revision, author will be asked to revise the manuscript according to the suggestions. Then, in a new round of review, author's revised version will be presented to you for your re-evaluation.

It is responsible for presenting the corrections requested by the reviewers to the author in an explanatory and polite language. It is responsible for maintaining the reviewer's evaluations or special evaluations in an ethical manner within the scope of the "article evaluation form" of the reviewers and contributing to the scientific preparation of the articles at a high level.

Should you have any question regarding the review process, you may contact the Editor.

In the presence of at least two negative situations about the article, the editor can use his right to "reject" the article without evaluation or to send it back to the author. In the presence of one negative an done positive evaluation about the article, it is a general policy to send the article to a new reviewer.

For article acceptance, at least two positive evaluations are needed.


ACEM is hosted by TUBITAK DergiPark, and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License