Rewiever Guidelines

Given that the Journal of Social Economic Research aims to publish original and important 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. Also included are our terms and conditions for reviewing based on the COPE Principles, which provide more information on how to conduct an objective and constructive review.
The Journal of Social Economic Research adopts a double blind peer review model

Selection of Rewievers
Reviewers are selected from experts who have a doctorate degree and publications in the relevant field of the article. Information of the experts employed in Turkish universities can be accessed from the YÖK Academic website, while information of experts abroad can be accessed from Publons.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers
1) Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any possible personal biases and take them into account when reviewing an article. Reviewers should clearly state their supporting evaluations in their decision
2) Contribution to Editorial Decision: Reviewer evaluation assists the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with an opportunity to improve the article. In this regard, a reviewer who feels inadequate to review an article or thinks that he/she cannot complete the review in a short period of time should not accept the invitation to review.
3) Confidentiality: All articles submitted to the journal for review should be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share their reviews or any information about the article with anyone or contact the authors directly. Information in the study should not be used by a reviewer in his/her own research without the explicit written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
4) Sensitivity to Research and Publication Ethics Violations: Reviewers should be cautious of possible ethical issues in the article and report them to the editor.
5) Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not accept to review an article that may have potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with authors or institutions to which the article is affiliated.
6) Request for Citation to the Reviewer: If a reviewer suggests that a writer includes references to the work of the reviewer (or their colleagues), this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the reviewer's citation count or visibility of their work. See also Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewing
Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscripts objectively, taking into account the following factors during the peer-review proces
• Does the article contain new and important information?
• Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
• Has the method been clearly and coherently described?
• Are the comments and conclusions supported by the findings?
• Has sufficient references been given to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality sufficient?
• The summary/abstract and keywords accurately reflect the content of the article.

Editor's Guide

Selection of Editors
Editors are selected among experts who have academic studies and/or academic titles in accordance with the scope of the journal.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
Coordinating 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 peer reviewers, and the editor should seek additional feedback when necessary.
Determining Reviewers
The Editor will select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation. The Editor will follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent reviewers.
Privacy Protection
The editor must maintain the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the authors and reviewers concerned. In exceptional circumstances and in 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 contained in a submitted manuscript should not be used in the editor's own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained during the refereeing process should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.
Neutrality
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.
Investigation of Claims
If an editor finds convincing evidence of ethical misconduct, they should communicate with the Editorial Board and Publisher to ensure correction, retraction, or other appropriate action is taken for the article.
Conflict of Interest
An editor should not be involved in decisions related to articles written by themselves or their family members. In addition, such work should be subject to all regular procedures of the journal. The editor should apply the ICMJE guidelines for disclosure of possible conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.
Publishing Decision
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, by reviewing the peer review reports. The editor must comply with the policies established by the editorial board.
Journal Citation Request
The editor should not attempt to influence the ranking of the journal by artificially increasing any journal metric. The editor will not request that articles from his/her journal or any other journal be cited, except for scientific reasons.
Publishing Correction, Retraction, and Expression of Concern
If minor errors are detected in a published article that do not affect the findings, interpretations, and conclusions, editors may consider publishing a correction. When significant errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions occur, editors should consider retracting the article. If there is a possibility of research or publication misconduct by the authors, and there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and their institutions have not investigated the matter or the investigation appears unjustified or inconclusive, editors should consider publishing an expression of concern. COPE and ICJME guidelines are taken into account regarding correction, retraction, or expression of concern.