Referee Guideline

Considering that Milel ve Nihal aims to publish original and important articles, we ask our referees to help us in the evaluation of article submissions.
Below are some tips on the article evaluation process, how to become a referee and how to write a good review. Also included are our terms and conditions for reviewing based on the COPE Principles, which provide more information on how to conduct an objective and constructive review.
Milel ve Nihal has adopted a double blind reviewing model.

Selection of Referees
The referees are selected among experts who have a PhD degree in the field of science to which the article relates and who have publications. The information of the experts from Turkish universities can be accessed from YÖK Academic website and the information of the experts from abroad can be accessed from Publons.

Duties and Responsibilities of Referees
1. Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias and take this into account when reviewing an article. The reviewer should clearly express his/her judgements in support of his/her 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 manuscript. In this respect, a referee who feels inadequate in reviewing an article or who thinks that he/she cannot complete the review in a short time should not accept the referee invitation.
3. Confidentiality: All manuscripts submitted to the journal for review should be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or communicate directly with the authors. Information contained in the manuscript should not be used by a reviewer in his/her own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.
4. Sensitivity to Violations of Research and Publication Ethics: Reviewers should be alert to possible ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
5. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript with potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationship with the authors or the organisations with which the manuscript is affiliated.
6. Referee Citation Request: If a referee suggests that an author include citations to the referee's (or their associates') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not for the purpose of increasing the referee's citation count or increasing the visibility of their work. 

Making a Review

Referees' evaluations should be objective. During the refereeing process, referees are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following points.
- Does the article contain new and important information?
- Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
- Is the methodology described in a coherent and understandable manner?
- Are the interpretations and conclusions substantiated by the findings?
- Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
- Is the language quality adequate?
- Does the abstract/keywords/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
Coordinating the Referee Process
The editor should 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
Editor; will select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation. Editor will follow best practices to avoid selection of fraudulent reviewers.

Confidentiality
The editor must maintain the confidentiality of all materials submitted to the journal and all communications with referees, unless otherwise agreed with the respective authors and referees. 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 reviewing process must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Impartiality
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 and the Publisher to have the article rectified, 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, such work should be subject to all the usual procedures of the journal. The editor should follow the ICMJE guidelines regarding disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

Publication Decision
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published by examining the reviewers reports. The editor must comply with the policies determined by the Editorial Board.

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
Editors may consider issuing a correction if minor errors are detected in the published article that do not affect the findings, comments, and conclusions. Editors 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 and ICJME guidelines are taken into account with regard to correction, withdrawal or expression of concern.