Double-Blind Review is a method applied for publishing scientific publications with the highest quality. This method forms the basis of an objective evaluation of scientific studies and is preferred by many scientific journals.

The views of referees have a decisive place in the publication quality of Menba Journal of Fisheries Faculty.

Menba Journal of Fisheries Faculty uses the double-blind review method, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process, in the evaluation process of all studies. For this reason, the authors are asked to erase their names while uploading the articles to the system.

All the studies sent to Menba Journal of Fisheries Faculty are evaluated by double-blind review method according to the following steps.


1. Initial Evaluation Process

The studies submitted to Menba Journal of Fisheries Faculty are first evaluated by the editor. At this stage, studies that are not in line with the aim and scope of the journal, are weak in terms of language and narrative rules in English contain scientifically critical mistakes, are not original worthy and cannot meet publication policies are rejected. Authors of rejected studies will be notified within one month at the latest from the date of submission.  Eligible persons are those subject to pre-assessment.


2. Pre-Evaluation Process

In the pre-evaluation process, it examines the studies, introduction and literature, methods, findings, results, evaluation and discussion sections in detail in terms of journal publication policies, scope and originality of the study. As a result of this examination, the ineligible work is returned to the author with the evaluation report of the field editor within four weeks at the latest. The studies which are suitable for the journal are passed to the referee process.

3. Referee Process

The studies are sent to the referees according to their content and the expertise of the referees. The editor examining the study may propose at least two referees from the pool of Menba Journal of Fisheries Faculty Advisory Board or referee pool according to their field of expertise or may propose a new referee appropriate to the field of study.

The referee suggestions are evaluated by the editor and the studies are presented to the referees. The referees are obliged to ensure that they will not share any process or document related to the work they are evaluating.

4. Referee Evaluation Process

The period given to the referee for the evaluation process is 15 days. Proposals for corrections from referees or editors must be completed by the authors within 1 month according to the “correction instruction”.

Referees can decide on the suitability of the study by reviewing the corrections and may also request multiple corrections if necessary.


Referee Reports

Referee evaluations are based in general on the originality of the studies, the method used, the conformity with the ethical rules, the consistent presentation of the findings and results, and the examination of the literature.

This review is based on the following elements:

1. Introduction and Literature: The evaluation report contains the presentation and purpose of the problem addressed in the study, the importance of the topic, the scope of the relevant literature, the timeliness and the originality of the study.

2. Methodology: The evaluation report includes information on the suitability of the method used, the choice and characteristics of the research group, validity and reliability, as well as on the data collection and analysis process.

3. Findings: The evaluation report includes opinions on the presentation of the findings obtained in the frame of the method, the correctness of the analysis methods, the aims of the research and the consistency of the findings, the presentation of the required tables, figures and images and the conceptual evaluation of the tests used.

4. Evaluation and discussion: The evaluation report includes the opinion on the subject based on findings, relevance to research questions and hypotheses, generalizability and applicability.

5. Conclusion and suggestions: The evaluation report contains the opinion on the contributions to the literature, future studies and recommendations for the applications in the area.

6. Style and narration: The evaluation report includes compatibility of the headline with the content, appropriate use of English in the study, refers and references in accordance with the language of the study and APA rules.

7. Overall evaluation: The evaluation report contains opinion on the authenticity of the study as a whole, its contribution to the educational literature and the applications in the area.

Plagiarism Detection

In agreement with publishing policies of Menba Journal of Fisheries Faculty, plagiarism check is required for each study that has undergone the “Review Process”. The Turnitin plagiarism checker software is used for plagiarism detection.


Proofs

Proof documents will be sent to the corresponding authors via online submission system. Proofs should be checked immediately and responses should be returned back within 15 working days. It is the responsibility of the authors to check carefully the proofs. No changes will be allowed at this stage.