The Mediterranean Journal of Humanities (MJH) adopts a double-blind peer review system to ensure the highest standards of academic publishing. Peer review is one of the most important processes for guaranteeing the quality and reliability of scholarly publications. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the academic integrity, methodological rigor, and ethical standards of the journal.

Ethical Misconduct Suspicion: Reviewers must notify the Editor if they suspect research or publication misconduct. The Editor is responsible for taking appropriate actions in line with COPE recommendations.

1. Initial Evaluation Process

All manuscripts submitted to MJH are first evaluated by the Editors on the Journal Board.

Manuscripts are typically rejected at this stage if they:

• Fall outside the aims and scope of the journal,
  
• Lack sufficient originality,
  
• Contain serious scientific or methodological flaws,
  
• Raise concerns of ethical misconduct,
  
• Fail to meet the minimum academic standards of language and expression.

In some cases, authors may be invited to make minor corrections before their manuscript is reconsidered.
Manuscripts that pass the initial controls are assigned to an Associate Editor listed on the Editorial Board page. The Editor initiates the reviewer selection process and assigns suitable reviewers via the DergiPark system. Review invitations are automatically sent to reviewers through the email address linked to their DergiPark accounts.

2. Type of Peer Review

MJH employs a double-blind peer review system, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are sent to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, prior publication record, and adherence to ethical standards. In cases of disagreement between two reviewers (e.g., one recommends acceptance while the other rejects), the manuscript is referred to a third reviewer.

4. Peer Review Procedures

• MJH strictly follows a double-blind review system: the identities of authors and reviewers are never disclosed.
  
• All reviews are conducted exclusively through the DergiPark online platform.
  
• Reviewers are expected to assess the originality, methodological rigor, scientific contribution, and academic style of the manuscript objectively.
  
• While language and grammar corrections are not the main focus of the review, reviewers may provide suggestions on these issues if they wish.
  

5. Review Timeline

• Reviewers have 7 days to accept or decline the review invitation.
  
• Once accepted, the review deadline is 15 days from the acceptance date.
  
• Extensions may be granted upon request.
  
• If one review is positive and the other negative, a third review is sought.
  
• Editorial decisions, along with reviewer reports, are communicated to authors.
  
• Manuscripts accepted with major revisions may be resubmitted to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
  

6. Final Decision

• Once the review process and revisions (if any) are complete, the Editor makes the final decision based on reviewer reports.
  
• Decisions (acceptance, rejection, or revision) are conveyed to the authors along with reviewer comments.
  
• Reviewer identities remain strictly confidential in all correspondence with authors.
  
• The Editor ensures that the final decision reflects the reviewers’ assessments while upholding the journal’s academic and ethical standards.
  

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

All reviews must be conducted online via the DergiPark system.

During the review process, reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts by considering the following questions, as outlined in the MJH Reviewer Evaluation Form available in the reviewer panel on DergiPark

1. Do the title, abstract and keywords reflect the content of the article?
   
2. Is the text understandable and clear enough?
   
3. Has it been written in a flowing language avoiding repetitions and has the terminology been used correctly?
   
4. Are the terms related to the source languages (such as Assyrian, Hittite, Ancient Greek, Latin, Arabic, Ottoman etc.) specified correctly and the grammar/spelling rules followed?
   
5. Are the discussions and interpretations suitable for the scientific methods?
   
6. Are original, primary sources and current studies on the subject matter taken into consideration?
   
7. Are the figures (photograph, map, drawing etc.) suitable for the content?
   
8. Is a special permission required for the use of the material culture remains and the figures?
   
9. Is it written in accordance with the publishing principles of MJH?
10. Does the article contribute to advancing knowledge in its field?
11. Are there any ethical issues in the article?
12. Do the works set out in the footnotes and bibliography match each other?
13. Please select the scope of the article. (Original Research / Review / Conference Paper)
14. Suggestions to Author.
15. Comments to Editor.
16. Decision: Major Revision, Minor Revision, Reject, or Accept

Note: All items must be addressed by reviewers.

Reviewer Ethical Duties:
Impartiality: Reviews must be conducted independently of personal, political, religious, or academic bias.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts and their contents must not be shared with third parties. All information remains confidential until publication. Any plagiarism or copyright violation must be reported to the Editor.
Professional Conduct: Reviewers must use respectful and constructive language, avoiding offensive or derogatory remarks.
Conflict of Interest: Reviewers with personal or academic conflicts of interest with the authors must decline the review.
Scholarly Contribution: Reviewer reports must be constructive, clear, and reasoned, offering concrete suggestions for improvement.
Withdrawal: A reviewer who feels unqualified to assess the manuscript’s subject matter, or unable to meet the deadline, should withdraw promptly.

8. Becoming a Reviewer for MJH

MJH continuously expands its reviewer pool and invites academics from diverse fields to contribute. Researchers who wish to serve as reviewers may apply via the “Send Reviewer Request” section on the journal’s website.
Being a reviewer not only contributes to the academic community but also provides the opportunity to read and evaluate the latest research in one’s field at an early stage.