Referee Guide
Considering that the Journal of Sirah Studies aims to publish original and influential articles, we ask reviewers to help us evaluate the article submissions we receive.
Below are some tips on the article review process, how to become a reviewer, and how to write a good review. Our terms and conditions for reviewing based on the COPE Principles are also included, providing more information on conducting an objective and constructive review.
The Journal of Sirah Studies has adopted a double-blind reviewing model.

Selection of Reviewers
Referees are selected among experts who hold a PhD degree and have publications in the field to which the article relates. The experts from Turkish universities can be accessed from the YÖK Academic website, and 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 consider this when reviewing an article. The reviewer should clearly articulate the considerations that support their 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 reviewer 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 invitation to review.
3) Confidentiality: All manuscripts received by the journal for review must 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 author's express written permission. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
4) Sensitivity to the Ethical Conduct of Research and Publication: Reviewers should be alert to potential 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 institutions 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 collaborators') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the number of citations or the visibility of the referee's work. See also Code of Ethics for Reviewers
Conducting a Review
Referees' evaluations should be objective. During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider 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 way?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
• Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality adequate?
• Do the abstract/abstract/keywords/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

Editor's Guide

Selection of Editors
Editors are selected among experts with a PhD degree and publications in accordance with the scope of the journal.

Turkey Editors Workshop Group
The Journal of Sirah Studies encourages editors to be in contact with other editors, as it would be helpful for them. Our editors are members of the Turkish Editors Workshop Group.

Duties and Responsibilities of the Editors

Coordinate the Referee Process
The editor should ensure 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 feedback when necessary.

Identification of Reviewers
The Editor will select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, considering the need for proper, inclusive, diverse representation. The Editor will follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent reviewers.

Protecting Confidentiality
The editor must maintain the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers unless otherwise agreed upon with the authors and reviewers concerned. In exceptional circumstances and consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where the editor deems it necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct. The editor must protect the identity of reviewers. Information in a submitted manuscript should not be used in the editor's own research without the author's express written permission. Privileged information or ideas obtained during the refereeing process should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.

Impartiality
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy.

Investigation of Allegations
An editor who finds convincing evidence of ethical violations should contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to have the manuscript corrected, retracted or otherwise amended.

Conflict of Interest
The editor should not be involved in decisions on manuscripts written by him/herself or by family members. Furthermore, such a paper should be subject to all the usual procedures of the journal. The editor should follow the COPE guidelines on disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

Publication Decision
The Editor is responsible for reviewing the referee reports and deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The editor must comply with the policies set by the Editorial Board.

Request for Citation to the Journal
The editor should not attempt to influence the journal's ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. The editor will not request citations of articles from his/her journal or any other journal except for scientific reasons.

Correction, Retraction, and Issuance of an Expression of Concern
Editors may consider correcting if minor errors are identified in the published article that do not affect the findings, interpretations and conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the manuscript if significant errors/violations invalidate the findings and conclusions. Editors should consider stating concern if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and that the authors' institutions have not investigated the incident if the possible investigation seems unfair or inconclusive, and if there is a possibility of research or publication misconduct by the authors. COPE guidelines are followed regarding correction, retraction or expression of concern.

Dear referees;
Please follow these steps to evaluate the articles sent to you by our journal:
1. Login to the system with your username and password.
2. Select the Journal of Sirah Studies in the panel section
3. Click New Invitation in the drop-down menu
4. On the open page, you will see the name and status of the article you are asked to evaluate. Click on the article name.
5. On the new open page, you are asked whether you agree to evaluate the article. To accept, click on the "I want to evaluate" button in the green section.
6. After accepting the evaluation, you can download the article file by clicking on the "Evaluation Version" title in the dialogue section. You can evaluate the article by clicking the "Complete and Submit Form" link on the same page.
7. After completing the entire form, click the "Save and Finish" button.
8. If there is an additional file in which you have made corrections, you can upload it to the system from the FILE ADD-SUBMIT section.