Reviewer's Guide

Considering that Selcuk Tourism and Information Technology Research Journal aims to publish original and important articles, we ask reviewers to assist us in evaluating the article submissions we receive. Below are the article review process, how to become a reviewer, and tips on writing a good review. Additionally, our reviewing requirements and conditions are based on the COPE Principles, which provide more information on how to conduct an objective and constructive review.

Selcuk Tourism and Information Technology Research Journal has adopted a double-blind peer review model.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected from experts who have doctoral degrees and publications in the relevant field of the article. Access to the information of experts serving in Turkish universities can be obtained from the YOK Academic website, while access to the information of experts abroad can be obtained from Publons.

Reviewer Duties and Responsibilities

1. Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively. Reviewers must be aware of any possible personal biases and take them into account when evaluating a manuscript. The reviewer should clearly express their supportive evaluations in making a decision.
2. Contribution to Editorial Decision: The reviewer's evaluation helps the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with an opportunity to improve the manuscript. Therefore, a reviewer who feels inadequate or believes that they cannot complete the review in a short period of time should decline the invitation to review.
3. Confidentiality: All manuscripts submitted to the journal for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share their reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or contact the authors directly. Information obtained through peer review must not be used by a reviewer for their own research without the explicit written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
4. Sensitivity to Research and Publication Ethics Violations: Reviewers should be mindful of potential ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
5. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not accept to review a manuscript that may have potential conflicts of interest with the authors or the institutions with which the manuscript is affiliated.
6. Request for Citation by the Reviewer: If a reviewer proposes that an author include references to the reviewer's (or their partners') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the reviewer's citation count or visibility. Also, see the Ethical Rules for Reviewers.

Reviewing Process

During the peer-review process, it is expected that the reviewers consider the following aspects while evaluating a manuscript:
• Does the manuscript contain new and important information?
• Is the abstract clearly and accurately describing the content of the paper?
• Is the methodology well-defined and understandable?
• Are the comments and conclusions supported by evidence?
• Are there sufficient references to other relevant work in the field?
• Is the language quality adequate?
• Do the summary/abstract/keywords accurately reflect the content of the paper?

Editor Guidelines

Selection of Editors

Editors are selected from experts who have a doctoral degrees and have published work that is in line with the scope of the journal.

Responsibilities of Editors

Coordinate the Peer Review 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 opinions if necessary.

Selection of Reviewers

The editor will select appropriate reviewers with relevant expertise in the field, taking into account the need for diversity and inclusivity. The editor will follow best practices to avoid selecting fraudulent reviewers.

Protection of Confidentiality

The editor should maintain the confidentiality of all materials submitted to the journal and all communication with reviewers unless otherwise agreed with authors and reviewers. In exceptional cases and with consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals in order to investigate suspected research misconduct. The editor should protect the identities of reviewers. Information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Impartiality

The editor should evaluate manuscripts based on intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Investigation of Claims

An editor who finds convincing evidence of ethical violations should contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to ensure that appropriate action is taken, which may include correcting the article, retracting the article, or taking other appropriate actions.

Conflict of Interest

The editor should not be involved in decisions about papers that he or she has written or that have been written by family members. Such papers should be subject to all the journal's usual procedures. The editor should apply ICMJE guidelines regarding the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

Decision to Publish

The editor is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal should be published, based on the reviewers' reports. The editor must comply with the policies of the Editorial Board.

Request for Citation to Journal

The editor should not artificially inflate any journal metric and should not request that papers from his or her own journal or another journal be cited except for scientific reasons.

Publishing Correction, Retraction, Expression of Concern

Editors may consider publishing a correction if minor errors are found that do not affect the findings, interpretations, or conclusions of a published article. If major errors or violations occur that invalidate the findings and conclusions, editors should consider retracting the article. If there is evidence that the research or publication may have been misconducted by the authors or their institution, or the investigation is deemed unfair or inconclusive, editors should consider publishing an expression of concern. The correction, retraction, or expression of concern should be published promptly, clearly, and prominently.