The average evaluation period of the articles submitted to our journal is two months. The pre-check phase by the spelling and language editors is 7 days, the referee evaluation process is 45 days, and the editing phase by the final reader is 7 days.
In the Journal of the Faculty of Theology of Near East University, a double-blind refereeing system is applied.
Confidentiality is essential in referee reports; For this reason, the names of the referees are not included in the tag of the journal.
More than one article can be sent to a referee in one issue.
When reviewing the articles, the referees take into account the guidelines written here and the criteria in the referee form.
No fee is paid to the referees for the review/evaluation procedures.
In the Journal of the Faculty of Theology of Near East University, a double-blind refereeing system is applied.
Confidentiality is essential in referee reports; For this reason, the names of the referees are not included in the tag of the journal.
More than one article can be sent to a referee in one issue.
When reviewing the articles, the referees take into account the guidelines written here and the criteria in the referee form.
No fee is paid to the referees for the review/evaluation procedures.
Click for FIELD EDITOR EVALUATION FORM.
Responsibilities of the referees
- Contribution to Editors' Decisions
The peer review process assists the editor and editorial board in making the decisions of the editor. It may also serve the author in the preparation of the manuscript.
- Promptness
Any selected arbitrator who is not qualified to review the study or who is writing in an article or who knows that it is impossible to review it immediately should notify the editor and ask for his forgiveness for the review process. - Privacy
All manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. They should respect privacy and should not share article information other than those permitted by the editor. Referees should not use any name, information or symbol that would reveal their identities on the article file and in their reports.
While examining the Word file, they should remove their personal information from the settings section. In addition, it is recommended to use names such as users and referees who will not disclose their identities when monitoring changes on the file.
"Author and last saver" information should be checked in the properties section of the Word file, and there should not be any name, information or symbol that would reveal the identity of the reviewer. - Standards of Objectivity
Comments should be made objectively. The author's personal criticism is not appropriate. The referees should state their opinions with supporting evidence. - Acceptance of Resources
Referees should identify situations where the published work referred to in the article is not shown in the reference section. Other publications should indicate whether the source of derived observations or variables. The referees will inform the editor that there is a significant similarity or overlap between the manuscripts and other printed articles with personal information. - Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and should not be used for any advantage. Unpublished material described in a submitted article may not be used in the editor's or assistant's own research. Referees should not take into account articles with conflicts of interest that relate to competition, co-operation or other relationships or newspapers, authors, companies or institutions.