These guidelines have been prepared to ensure that the peer review process conducted within JMTPR is carried out in accordance with scientific, transparent, and ethical principles. The guidelines outline the rules that reviewers and the editorial team must follow during the evaluation process.
1. Purpose and Scope
• These guidelines have been developed to enhance the academic quality of the manuscripts submitted to our journal and to ensure the consistency of the review process.
• The peer review process aims to analyze the scientific contribution, methodological adequacy, and writing quality of submitted manuscripts.
2. Principles of the Review Process
1. Double-Blind Peer Review:
• The identities of both reviewers and authors are kept confidential.
• This principle ensures that the review process is conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
2. Transparency:
• Reviewers' feedback is shared with the authors, and the revision processes are explained in detail.
• Final decisions are made based on the reviewers’ reports and the evaluation of the editorial team.
3. Ethics and Impartiality:
• Reviewers must avoid personal or institutional conflicts of interest during the review process.
• If a reviewer has any conflict of interest concerning a manuscript, they must notify the editorial team.
3. Responsibilities of Reviewers
1. Scientific Evaluation:
• Reviewers should analyze the originality, methodological adequacy, and scientific contribution of the manuscripts.
• The evaluation should be based on the following criteria:
o Originality and novelty.
o Accuracy and applicability of the methodology.
o Clarity and presentation of findings.
o Alignment of the discussion with the literature.
o Contribution of conclusions and recommendations.
• The evaluation form provided through the system must be used, and reviews should be conducted according to the specified criteria, including a scoring system and detailed feedback.
2. Feedback:
• Reviewers must provide constructive and clear critiques and recommendations.
• Detailed and concrete explanations should be provided to ensure that authors understand the requested revisions.
3. Timely Submission:
• Reviewers must complete their evaluations within 20 days, as specified by the journal.
4. Confidentiality:
• Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript content and must not share any data or information with third parties.
4. Review Process Workflow
1. Preliminary Review:
• Manuscripts undergo a preliminary review by the editorial team to assess their compliance with format and content requirements. Manuscripts that do not adhere to the journal’s formatting guidelines will not proceed to the peer review process.
2. Reviewer Assignment:
• Each manuscript is assigned to at least two expert reviewers in the relevant field.
• Reviewers must respond to the invitation email within 7 days, indicating their acceptance or rejection of the review request.
3. Evaluation Criteria:
Manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria:
• Originality
• Scientific contribution
• Methodological adequacy
• Accuracy of findings
• Writing and language quality
4. Decision Types:
Reviewers can issue the following decisions:
• Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.
• Minor Revision: Minor revisions are required.
• Major Revision: Significant revisions are necessary.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
5. Submission of Reviewer Reports:
• Reviewer reports are examined by the editorial team before being shared with the authors.
• Manuscripts requiring revision must be resubmitted within the specified timeframe after necessary corrections have been made.
5. Compliance with COPE Principles
All ethical processes in our journal are conducted in accordance with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Within this framework, authors, reviewers, and editors have the following ethical responsibilities:
Responsibilities of Authors:
• Authors must declare that their submitted work is original, has not been previously published elsewhere, and is not under review by another publication.
• The contributions of all authors must be clearly specified, and individuals who did not contribute to the study should not be listed as authors.
• Any potential conflicts of interest must be explicitly disclosed.
• Authors must obtain the necessary ethical approvals for their research and confirm compliance with ethical guidelines.
Responsibilities of Reviewers:
• Reviewers must remain impartial and avoid conflicts of interest.
• Confidentiality of the information obtained during the review process must be maintained, and comments should be restricted to scientific content.
• Reviewers must provide clear, constructive, and academically sound evaluations in accordance with the journal’s standards.
Responsibilities of Editors:
• Editors are responsible for ensuring a transparent and fair review process.
• They must consider reviewers’ recommendations while making final decisions, adhering to ethical principles.
• In cases of ethical violations, appropriate actions will be taken based on COPE’s decision trees.
Managing Ethical Violations:
• If ethical misconduct is suspected, COPE’s decision trees will be followed in handling the situation.
• Ethical violations may include:
o Plagiarism (using another study’s content without proper citation).
o Fabrication of data.
o Misleading authorship (adding individuals as authors who did not contribute to the study).
o Failure to disclose conflicts of interest.
• If an ethical violation is confirmed, the manuscript will be retracted, and the authors will be notified.
6. Conditions for Participation in the Peer Review Process
1. Expertise:
• Reviewers must have expertise and experience in the subject area of the manuscript.
2. Acceptance of Invitations:
• Reviewers should only accept review invitations if they have sufficient time and knowledge to conduct a thorough evaluation.
3. Adherence to Ethical Principles:
• Reviewers must fully comply with academic and ethical standards during the review process.
7. Support for Reviewers
1. Guidelines and Training:
• A detailed technical guide has been prepared to help reviewers conduct the evaluation process effectively. This guide provides instructions on system usage and evaluation criteria.
2. Acknowledgment:
• A certificate of appreciation will be awarded to reviewers upon completion of the review process.
8. Contact Information
For any inquiries regarding the peer review process, please contact us:
• Email: gokbenbayramoglu@hitit.edu.tr
• Phone: +90 532 774 51 31