Asia Minor Studies Journal is an international and peer-reviewed academic journal published semi-annually and scientific articles passed through the double-blind peer-review process.

The editors and the publisher send all the works submitted for publication to at least two referees who are experts in their fields for evaluation. After the completion of the review process, the editor-in-chief decides which studies will be published, taking into account the accuracy of the work in question, its importance for researchers and readers, referee reports and legal regulations such as defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief may also take advice from other editors or referees when making this decision.

Studies sent to the referees for evaluation should be considered as confidential documents. The works should not be shown to others, their contents should not be discussed. When necessary, with the permission of the Editor-in-Chief, referees may seek advice from other colleagues. The Editor-in-Chief may grant this permission only in exceptional circumstances. The confidentiality rule also covers those who refuse to arbitrate.

Publication decisions

The editors and the publisher formally assure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are specialists in their field. After the completion of the review process, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may get advice from other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Promptness

A referee invited for review should immediately report on his/her availability and those who feel unqualified to review the research should inform the editor about their decisions as soon as possible.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts delivered to the referees should be treated as confidential documents. The manuscripts should not be shown to others, nor their contents should be discussed publicly. Only under the explicit authorization by the Editor-in-Chief a reviewer can seek advice from her colleagues. The Editor-in-Chief will give this permission only under exceptional conditions. This rule also concerns the persons who declined to take part in the process as a referee.

Standards of objectivity

Personal critiques oriented towards the manuscripts’ authors is not an appropriate manner of conduct. Reviews should follow an objective procedure in their reports and upon the acceptance of referee duty they accept that their comments are evidently supported by arguments that is of help to the authors in improving their work.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers have a duty to report to the authors any published work that is not part of the authors’ references. A reviewer should pay particular attention to the works in the field that are not cited by the authors, or overlaps between different works. A reviewer should notify the editors regarding similarity with any other previously published work, or other manuscripts they have a knowledge of.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.


Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.