Peer-Review Statement

All articles submitted to MJEN are subject to peer-review by at least two reviewers who are experts in areas relevant to the journal's topics. Articles are reviewed in full publishable form. Reviewers fill out the review form and provide authors with comments intended to improve the content, style, and other issues that can improve the quality of the article. Reviews are based on the following indicators:

1. Value or usefulness for a field or profession.

2. Design adequacy / accuracy of analysis.

3. Presentation and interpretation of results, discussion and conclusions.

4. Inclusion of relevant implications for practice.

5. Important and timely.

6. Relevance to existing literature.

7. General clarity of ideas and expression.

8. Grammatical construction; Writing style; use non-sexist language.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviews on articles should be objective assessments of the study. If you cannot, or are not sure that you can review an article impartially, you should not accept it for peer-review or notify the editor about it as soon as you assess the situation. If you have any professional or financial ties that may be perceived as a conflict of interest when reviewing an article or a personal disagreements with the author(s) in the past, you should describe them in your confidential comments.

If, as a reviewer, you consider that you are not qualified to evaluate the research component, you should inform the editor in your review.

Reviews must be constructive and polite, and the reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments.

In the same way that you want a quick assessment of your own research, please return your feedback within the time period indicated by the journal editor when you are asked to review the article. If there are events prevent timely view, you must inform the editor about this at the time of the request.

The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and should be treated as a confidential document. Please destroy all copies of the manuscript after reviewing. Please do not share the manuscript with colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers should not use data or interpretations for personal or professional purposes before publishing without the express permission of the authors (unless you are writing an editorial or commentary that accompanies the article).

Criteria for judgment articles: 

Articles should report a major breakthrough in a particular field.

Overall Recommendation: Please give your article review report based on the following categories:

Technical rigor: assess whether the results and interpretations given in the article are consistent with the data and methods used in the study. If necessary, indicate what additional information (methods, text or data) is needed. In some cases, if necessary, it is possible to request additional data. If such cases, your review should also include an assessment of additional materials.

Novelty: indicate in your review whether this study brings novelty to the area of ​​interest.

Security: Do you have any concerns that the article may be dangerous to public health, safety or security, please let the editor-in-chief know about this for further evaluation.

Conflict of interest: if for any reason you cannot review the article impartially, let us know immediately. If you have any financial or professional affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the article, please describe them on our online review form.

Confidentiality: We expect reviewers to protect the confidentiality of the article and ensure that it is not disseminated or exploited.  Please destroy your copy of the article when you complete the review. You can discuss the article only with the editor. We do not disclose the identity of our reviewers.

Return your review: Please return your review using our form at https://dergipark.org.tr/mjen