In the Journal of Ege Social Sciences, the offer of "Peer Review" can be made to active or retired individuals who have received academic qualifications and degrees in state institutions or in foundations and private organizations, and who have worked in the relevant fields of expertise. The offer is strictly made to individuals who have expertise, research, and/or publications and studies related to the subject of the article, via an invitation letter through the DergiPark automation system.
The principle of "blind peer review" is strictly observed. In this context, the identities of the author and the reviewers are kept strictly confidential. Just as the author and the reviewer are concealed from each other, the reviewers are also kept concealed from one another. Thus, potential subjective influences are minimized. The editorial board attaches serious importance to this confidentiality so that reviewers can make objective decisions without being influenced or feeling anxious. Care is taken to ensure that personal names are not included or explicitly revealed in the files or their document properties, which are uploaded to the system and exchanged between the parties during the review process.
Additionally, the main points taken into consideration are as follows:
· Reviewers must not have personal closeness or kinship with each other and the author, nor current teacher-student relationships.
· Reviewers must not be in the same institutions and units with each other and the author.
· In this context; the reviewer must inform the editorial board and withdraw from the review process when there are relationships or acquired knowledge outside the editorial board's awareness that would subjectively affect the principles of "blind peer review" and "impartiality".
In terms of the main evaluation principles, the fundamental expectations of the Journal of Ege Social Sciences from the reviewers are as follows:
· To carry out the article review process by taking into account the scope, primary writing rules, and ethical principles of the Journal of Ege Social Sciences.
· To determine the academic-scientific quality of the article and make an evaluation accordingly.
· To determine whether the article contributes to the relevant scientific field; whether it provides a solution to a specific problem, answers to questions, corrections to misconceptions, or developmental contributions to incomplete knowledge.
· To determine the article's value of originality or its status of "repetition" and "similarity," which might not be detectable by plagiarism detection programs and artificial intelligence, but can be understood through knowledge and experience in the field.
· To report these matters to the editorial board by noting them in the relevant sections or the report part of the evaluation form, where other technical and academic questions are also asked.
· In providing feedback within the scope of the evaluation, attention should be paid to rules of courtesy; "constructive criticism" should be preferred over harsh criticism in evaluation forms and notes in attached files.
It is important for reviewers to refrain from writing their names, signatures, and personal information on the files they are working on, which will be exchanged between the parties during the review process, and on the evaluation form. Although the editorial board checks for these, they might be overlooked; therefore, it is safer not to write them at all.
Journal of Ege Social Sciences is a publication organ within Ege University and does not have a separate budget or a financial/commercial aspect. In this regard, peer review is conducted on a voluntary basis without financial compensation, for the ethical and qualified continuation of academic publishing. In this respect, the Journal of Ege Social Sciences is aware that the labor of peer review is based on individual dedication as well as its scientific-ethical importance. At the end of the evaluation process and publication procedure, peer review/appreciation certificates in PDF format, with letterhead and signed by the editor, are sent to the reviewers by the journal; additionally, a list of reviewers is published after the masthead information in the "full issue file" of each published issue, ensuring that the labor of the reviewers is permanently recorded.