Peer-Review Guide
Please follow the steps below to evaluate an article submitted from the system:
Log in with your username and password.
Log in to the Journal Panel of Turkish Journal of African Studies from the My Journals section.
Log in to the referee panel.
Click on the title of the article you have been assigned as a reviewer from the new invitation.
On the new page that opens, you will be asked whether you agree to review the article. To accept, you must click on the "Accept Review" button in the green section.
After accepting the evaluation, you will see the full text of the article in the "Files" section.
After reviewing the article, fill out the evaluation form in the "Evaluation" tab. Upload the evaluation file if you have one.
Finally, click on the "Submit Review" button on the right side of the page.
Peer-Review Guide
The referees of the Turkish Journal of African Studies are selected from among experts in the topics covered in the articles. All selected referees are informed about the responsibilities and ethical principles of the referees, article evaluation criteria and procedure of the Turkish Journal of African Studies.
From the moment the referee accepts the referee invitation through the system, the referee is obliged to take into account the articles "Responsibilities and ethical principles of referees" and "Refereeing Processes".
Reviewers should only accept to review manuscripts for which they have the necessary expertise to make an appropriate assessment, can observe blind reviewer confidentiality, and can keep the details of the manuscript confidential in every way.
Reviewers invited to review a manuscript are expected to communicate their decision to accept or reject the manuscript within 7 days. The referee who has not made a decision by the end of this period is deemed to have rejected the review and the editor will appoint a new referee. Reviewers who accept the evaluation are expected to submit their opinions within 15 days from the date of acceptance of the invitation. The referee who does not complete the evaluation process within this period is given an additional period of up to 7 days upon request. If the referee does not request additional time, a new referee may be appointed.
Each reviewer who accepts the invitation to review is asked to fill out an evaluation form and express his/her acceptance or rejection opinion on the article, always providing concrete reasons.
In this evaluation form, reviewers are expected to give their opinions on the following issues:
Title and Content Congruence
Language and Expression of the Article
Systematic Compliance with Scientific Criteria
Defining the Scope and Conceptual Framework
Subject Integrity
Defining the Problem
Evaluation of Previous Studies
Research Methodology
Presentation, Organization and Consistency of Information
Critical Perspective
Access to Primary Sources
Access to New Scientific Studies
Mastery of the Terminology of the Field
Originality of the Study
Achieving Results
The referees express an opinion on all of these issues by choosing one of the options of Adequate, Not Adequate, Partially Adequate, Mostly Adequate. The referees do not have to approve all of these issues for the article to be deemed publishable. However, the referees are required to indicate their suggestions to the author in the "Note to the Author" section, especially regarding the parts of the evaluation form that are answered Not Satisfactory and Partially Satisfactory.
After completing this form, reviewers can make the following decisions:
-The manuscript requires major revisions (Major Revision).
- The manuscript requires few revisions (Minor Revision).
- The manuscript is not suitable for publication (Rejection).
- The manuscript can be published as it is (Acceptance).
If one of the referee reports is positive and the other is negative, the manuscript is sent to a third referee.
One referee report is sufficient for rejection, but at least two referee reports are required for acceptance.
If one of the referee reports is "Acceptance" or "Minor Revision" and the other is "Major Revision" and the editor's opinion is in favor of acceptance, the manuscript is sent back to the same referee after the author makes the corrections. According to the opinion of the referee with a Major Revision report, the article is rejected or sent to the 3rd referee.
The referee requesting revision may request to re-evaluate the article after revision. The referee is given an additional 15 days for this evaluation.
Reviewers can contact the editor via the JournalPark messages section for further guidance or to report any suspected violations.
Correspondence here is not visible to the authors.
For articles based on field research or data analysis, the referee may request data from the editor for a sound evaluation of the analysis in the article. The journal editor will contact the author in this regard and forward the data to the referee.
Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest with the research, the authors and/or the research funders. If a conflict of interest is foreseen, the reviewer should contact the editorial board and indicate any potential conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into account in any conflict of interest that may arise.(https://publicationethics.org/case/conflict-interest)
Reviewers may not utilize or share the data of the manuscripts they review prior to publication