Reviewer Guideline

The KADEM Journal of Women’s Studies is committed to a rigorous and ethical peer review process that upholds the quality, credibility, and academic value of scholarly publishing. Peer reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific and ethical integrity of the journal. This guideline outlines the expectations and principles for reviewers contributing to our journal. The journal expects all peer reviewers to comply with COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

1. Role of the Reviewer

During evaluation, reviewers are expected to:

• Assess the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, and contribution of the manuscript to the field.
• Provide objective, clear, and timely feedback.
• Assist the editors in making informed publication decisions.
• Offer constructive suggestions that can help authors improve their manuscripts.

2. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting an invitation to review, reviewers should consider the following:

• Expertise: Only accept the task if the subject matter aligns with your area of expertise.
• Conflict of Interest: Decline the invitation if you have any personal, institutional, or professional conflict of interest with the author(s).
• Availability: Ensure you can complete the review within the required timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks).

In case reviewers cannot accept the invitation, they are welcome to recommend alternative qualified reviewers.

3. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

• Manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents.
• They must not be shared, copied, or discussed with others without the express permission of the editor.
• Any data or ideas obtained through the peer review process must not be used for personal benefit.
• Please inform the editor immediately if you suspect:

            - Plagiarism

            - Data fabrication or manipulation

            - Any other breach of publication ethics

4. Conducting the Review

A. General Evaluation

Does the manuscript make an original and meaningful contribution to the field of women’s studies?

Is the theoretical framework and research question clearly defined?

B. Structural and Content Assessment

• Is the abstract clear and informative?
• Is the introduction and literature review comprehensive and current?
• Are the methods described in sufficient detail and appropriate to the study?
• Are the results presented clearly and logically?
• Are the discussion and conclusions supported by the data?
• Are the references appropriate and formatted correctly?

C. Language and Presentation

• Is the manuscript clearly written in an academic tone?
• Are tables and figures relevant and properly labeled?
• Does the manuscript comply with the journal’s submission guidelines?

5. Writing the Review Report

Reviewer comments should be respectful, specific, and constructive. A standard review report should include:

• General Summary: A brief description of the manuscript’s purpose and scope.
• Major Comments: Critical concerns about the theory, methods, analysis, or findings.
• Minor Comments: Suggestions related to clarity, language, formatting, or referencing.
• Recommendation (select one):

            - Accept

            - Minor revisions

            - Major revisions and resubmission

            - Reject

Reviewers are expected to justify their recommendation with clear and evidence-based reasoning.

6. Timeline for the Peer Review Process

Reviewer invitation: Within 3 business days from the submission date

Acceptance/rejection response: Within 5 business days after the invitation

Review period: Must be completed within 21 days after acceptance

Reminder emails: May be sent twice during the review period

7. Performance Monitoring and Feedback

The journal regularly monitors reviewers’ response times and the quality of their evaluations. Feedback is shared with reviewers based on performance criteria, and training is provided when necessary.

8. Anonymity and Communication

The journal employs a double-blind peer review system. Reviewer and author identities are kept anonymous. Reviewers should not contact the authors directly.

9. Revisions and Further Review

• Reviewers may be invited to review a revised version of the manuscript as part of the ongoing review process.
• The continued involvement of reviewers is valuable to ensure the quality and consistency of the manuscript.
• Reviewers should report any ethical concerns or significant academic flaws to the Section Editor or Editor-in-Chief directly.

10. Use of Generative AI in Peer Review

The use of generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot) in the review process must follow the guidelines below:

A. Permitted and Limited Use

• AI tools may be used only for personal note organization or language editing of the review.
• Reviewers must not enter any part of the manuscript into AI tools that store or process input for training purposes.

B. Prohibited Use

• Uploading the manuscript or any of its sections into generative AI platforms is strictly forbidden.
• Using AI to generate full review reports or make evaluative decisions in place of human judgment is unethical.
• AI cannot replace the critical analysis and scholarly reasoning of the reviewer.

C. Responsibility

• Even if AI tools are used to assist with phrasing or formatting, you are solely responsible for the entire content and accuracy of your review.
• Any unethical use of AI may lead to the journal discontinuing its collaboration with the reviewer.

11. Acknowledging Reviewer Contributions

The journal delivers an acknowledgment certificate to each reviewer that has accomplished their review. In addition, the journal publishes an annual acknowledgment list of contributing reviewers.