Articles are subject to a strictly confidential review process. The names of the reviewers are kept confidential and are known only to the editors. Submissions are evaluated impartially for publication regardless of the authors’ race, gender, religious views, ethnic origin, nationality, political orientation, age, or reputation.
Reviewers are selected from among experts in the fields addressed by the articles. Each reviewer is asked to complete an evaluation form and, if necessary, prepare a separate report. Individuals who have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of an article cannot review it (for example, those who have collaborated with one of the authors, contributed to the work, are unable to provide an objective opinion, are employees of an institution under review, are competitors of such an institution, or hold strong political/ideological views that could bias their judgment). Authors are required to inform the editorial board of any potential conflict of interest before the article is sent to the referees.
Reviewer reports are expected to be professional, honest, thorough, accurate, and constructive.
The key elements required for a high-quality review are as follows:
Reviewers should primarily evaluate the methodology of the study.
Reviewers should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the study as a written means of communication, regardless of its findings or presentation.
Reviewers should express their opinions on whether the study raises ethical concerns or falls short of scientific standards.
Reviewers should provide useful recommendations to the authors to improve the study. Criticism must be constructive and professional.
The review should provide the editor with a reliable perspective and content to make a decision regarding acceptance (and/or revision).
Reviewers are expected to identify uncited works and make references to them, indicating which elements of the study have been transferred.
Reviewers must not contact the authors directly. In many cases, two experts will be consulted, but their opinions may not coincide with the editor’s final decision. Even partial advice from a referee could create a misleading impression of the review process for the authors.
Reviewers invited to evaluate an article are expected to communicate their acceptance or rejection of the invitation within 7 days. If no response is given within this period, the reviewer is considered to have declined, and the field editor assigns a new referee. Reviewers who accept must submit their evaluations within 15 days from the acceptance date. If necessary, they may be granted an additional 7 days upon request. If no request is made, a new referee is assigned.
Confidentiality
Information and ideas obtained during the review process must be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal advantage.
Unless granted written permission by the editor, reviewers must not share the study with colleagues.
Reviewers and editors cannot use the data, interpretations, or subjects of the study for professional or personal purposes (unless directly related to the review) or write commentary pieces prior to publication without the explicit consent of the authors.
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest to the editorial board.
Reviewers should inform the editor if they are unable to review a manuscript or can only do so with delay.
Reviewers must evaluate the work objectively, provide clear, impartial, and constructive criticism, and avoid personal remarks directed at the authors. Since the comments are shared with the authors, they should be expressed transparently and supported to ensure the authors can understand the reasoning behind them.
Steps for Reviewers in the System
1. Log into the DergiPark panel with your username and password.
2. Select Sinop Journal of Theology from the list of journals on your panel.
3. In the reviewerpanel, click on the “New Invitation” tab to access the article assigned to you (or use the direct link in the invitation email).
4. Accept the referee invitation.
5. Click the “Show” button on the right side of the relevant article to view its details.
6. Click on the “Files” tab, then click the “Download” icon next to the article listed under “Article Files” to download it to your computer.
7. Record your review notes directly on the article file. To do this, activate the “Track Changes” option in Word under the “Review” tab. If necessary, use “New Comment” or right-click to add explanations.
8. After completing your review, rename the file as Reviewer Report and delete all author information from the file. This is essential to maintain confidentiality (use “File–Info–Check for 9. Issues–Inspect Document–Remove All Document Properties and Personal Information” or “Tools–Protect Document–Privacy–Remove Personal Information from This File”).
9. Re-upload your report via the “Files” tab of the relevant article using the “Add New File” option.
10. Complete the “Article Evaluation Form” under the “Evaluation” tab and click “Submit Evaluation.” You should see the message “Your submission has been successfully completed” at the top of the page. If not, check whether you left any required fields empty, complete them, and resubmit.
11. In the “Recommendation” section of the form: “Major Revision” means “I would like to review the text again after the recommended revisions are made.” “Minor Revision” means “I have suggested some corrections, but I do not need to see the text again after they are made.” “Accept” means that no revisions are recommended and the article can be published in its current form. If you request a major revision, you will be reassigned to the article for further review, and the same process described above will apply again (you will need to re-accept the invitation and repeat the steps).