REVIEWER AND EDITOR'S GUIDE

Reviewer Guide

Considering that Journal of Fungus aims to publish original and important articles, we ask the reviewers to assist in the evaluation of the article submissions we receive.
Below are recommendations on the article review process, how to become a reviewer, and how to write a good review. We also have our arbitration terms and conditions based on the COPE Principles, which provide more information on how to conduct objective and constructive arbitration.
Journal of Fungus has adopted the double-blind refereeing model.

Selection of Reviewer
The reviewers are selected from among experts who have a doctorate degree in the field of science related to the article and have publications.

Duties and Responsibilities of the Reviewers
1) Objectivity: Investigations should be done objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal biases they may have and take this into account when reviewing a manuscript. The reviewer must clearly express his or her evaluations in support of his decision.
2) Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with the opportunity to improve the article. In this respect, a reviewer who feels inadequate to review an article or thinks that he will not be able to complete the review in a short time should not accept the invitation to review.
3) Confidentiality: All articles that reach the journal for review should be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the article with anyone or contact the authors directly. The information contained in the study should not be used by a reviewer in his own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
4) Sensitivity to Research and Publication Ethics Violations: Reviewers should be alert to possible ethical issues in the article and report them to the editor-in-chief.
5) Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review an article with potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with the authors or the institutions to which the articles are affiliated.
6) Request for Review Citation: If a reviewer recommends that an author include citations to the reviewer's (or their partners') work, it must be for genuine scientific reasons, not to increase the reviewer's citation count or increase the visibility of their work.

Making a Review
The evaluations of the reviewers should be objective. During the review process, the reviewers are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following points.
• Does the article contain new and important information?
• Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article?
• Is the method comprehensively and clearly defined?
• Are the comments and conclusions made substantiated by the findings?
• Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality adequate?
• Does the Abstract/Abstract/keywords/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

Field Editors' Guide

Field Editors' Choice
Field Editors are selected from among experts who have a doctorate degree and have publications in accordance with the scope of the journal's publication.

Türkiye Editors' Workshop Group
The Journal of Fungus encourages them to keep in touch with other editors, thinking it will be useful for the editors. Our editors are members of the Türkiye Editors' Workshop Group.

Field Editors' Roles and Responsibilities
Coordinating the Review Process
The Field Editor must ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial, and timely. Research articles should be reviewed by at least two external reviewers and the editor should seek additional comments when necessary.

Determination of Reviewers
Field Editors; will select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation. Field Editors will follow best practices to avoid selection of fraudulent reviewers.

Privacy Protection
The editor must maintain the confidentiality of all materials submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the respective authors and reviewers. In exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with the editors of other journals when deemed necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct. The editor must protect the identities of the reviewers. Information contained in a submitted article should not be used in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained during the review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Objectivity
Editors should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship, or the political philosophy of the authors.

Investigation of Claims
An editor who finds convincing evidence of an ethical violation should contact the Editorial Board (Central Executive Board) to have the article corrected, retracted, or other correction made.

Conflict of Interest
The editor should not be involved in decisions about articles written by him or his family members. In addition, work should be subject to all the usual procedures of the journal.

Publication Decision
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published by examining the review reports. The Editor-in-Chief must comply with the policies determined by the Editorial Board (Central Board of Directors).

Journal Citation Request
The editor should not attempt to influence the ranking of the journal by artificially increasing any journal metric. The editor will not request reference to the articles of his own journal or another journal, except for scientific reasons.

Correction, Withdrawal, Publication of Concern
The Editor-in-Chief may consider publishing a correction if minor errors are detected in the published article that do not affect the findings, comments and conclusions. The Editor-in-Chief should consider retracting the article in case of major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. Editors should consider issuing a statement of concern if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and that the authors' institutions did not investigate the case if there is a possibility of abusive research or publication by the authors, or if the potential investigation seems unfair or inconclusive. COPE guidelines are considered regarding correction, withdrawal or expression of concern.