Referee Guide
To evaluate an article sent from the system, follow the steps below:
• Log in with your username and password.
• Log in to the Journal Panel of Sakarya University State Conservatory Journal (JMFS) from the My Journals section.
• Log in to the referee panel.
• From the new invitation, click on the title of the article for which you have been appointed as a referee.
• On the newly opened page, you are asked whether you agree to evaluate the article. To accept, you must click on the "Accept Evaluation" button in the green section.
• After accepting the evaluation, you will see the full text of the article in the "Files" section.
• After reviewing the article, fill out the evaluation form in the "Evaluation" tab. Upload the evaluation file, if any.
• Finally, click on the “Send Evaluation” button on the right side of the page.
• Log in to the Journal Panel of Sakarya University State Conservatory Journal (JMFS) from the My Journals section.
• Log in to the referee panel.
• From the new invitation, click on the title of the article for which you have been appointed as a referee.
• On the newly opened page, you are asked whether you agree to evaluate the article. To accept, you must click on the "Accept Evaluation" button in the green section.
• After accepting the evaluation, you will see the full text of the article in the "Files" section.
• After reviewing the article, fill out the evaluation form in the "Evaluation" tab. Upload the evaluation file, if any.
• Finally, click on the “Send Evaluation” button on the right side of the page.
REFEREE PROCESSES
• In Journal of music and folklore studies (JMFS), referees are selected among experts on the subjects discussed in the articles. All selected referees are informed about the responsibilities of referees and the ethical principles they must comply with, article evaluation criteria and procedure in JMFS.
• From the moment the referee accepts the referee invitation through the system, he is obliged to take into account the articles "Referees' responsibilities and the ethical principles they must comply with" and "Referee Processes".
• Referees should only agree to referee articles for which they have the expertise necessary to make an appropriate evaluation, can respect blind peer review confidentiality, and can keep details of the article confidential in every way.
• Referees invited for article evaluation are expected to submit their acceptance or rejection decisions within 7 days. The referee who does not make any decision at the end of this period is deemed to have rejected the evaluation and the editor appoints a new referee. Referees who accept the evaluation are expected to express their opinions within 20 days from the date of acceptance of the invitation. The referee who does not complete the evaluation process within this period is given an additional period of up to 7 days if requested. If the referee does not request additional time, a new referee may be appointed.
• Each referee who accepts the referee invitation is asked to fill out an evaluation form and express his or her acceptance or rejection opinions regarding the article by providing concrete justifications.
In this evaluation form, the referees are expected to express their opinions on the following issues:
1. Title and Content Compatibility
2. Language and Expression of the Article
3. Systematic Compliance with Scientific Criteria
4. Defining Scope and Conceptual Framework
5. Subject Integrity
6. Defining the Problem
7. Review of Previous Studies
8. Research Method
9. Presentation, Order and Consistency of Information
10. Critical Perspective
11. Access to New Scientific Studies
12. Getting Results
13. Consistency of Research Findings and Their Rational Relationship with the Results
14. Contribution to the Field
8. Research Method
9. Presentation, Order and Consistency of Information
10. Critical Perspective
11. Access to New Scientific Studies
12. Getting Results
13. Consistency of Research Findings and Their Rational Relationship with the Results
14. Contribution to the Field
The referees give an opinion on all of these issues by choosing one of the options: Satisfactory, Not Satisfactory, Partially Satisfactory, Mostly Satisfactory. Referees do not need to approve all of these issues in order for the article to be published. However, in the review form, suggestions for the author, especially regarding the parts described "Not Satisfactory" and "Partially Satisfactory"and other other suggestions should be stated in the "Note to the Author" section.
After filling out this form, the referees can make the following decisions:
• Significant changes are required in the article (Major Revision).
• The manuscript requires a small number of corrections (Minor Revision).• The article is not suitable for publication (Rejection).
• The article can be published in its current form (Acceptance).
o The process is managed by appointing two referees outside the JMFS editorial board.
o If one of the referee reports is positive and the other is negative, the article is sent to a third referee.
o One referee report is sufficient to reject the manuscript, but at least two referee reports are required to accept the manuscript.
o If one of the referee reports is "Acceptance" or "Minor Revision" and the other is "Major Revision" and the editor's opinion is in favor of accepting the article, the study is sent back to the same referee after the author makes the corrections. Depending on the opinion of the referee who has the Major Revision report, the article is rejected or sent to the 3rd referee.
o The referee requesting revision may request to re-evaluate the article after the revision. The referee is given an additional 15 days for this evaluation.
o Reviewers can contact the editor via the DergiPark messages section to receive further guidance or to raise suspicion of any violations. The correspondence here is not visible to the authors.
o Data of articles based on field research or data analysis may be requested from the editor by the referee for a sound evaluation of the analysis in the article. The journal editor contacts the author and forwards the data to the referee.
o Reviewers should not have any conflict of interest regarding the research, authors and/or research funders. If a conflict of interest is anticipated, the referee must contact the editorial board and indicate a possible conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into account in case of conflicts of interest that may arise.
o Referees cannot benefit from the data of the articles they review before publication or share this data with others.