Reviewer Guidelines
TÜBA-HER Journal attaches great importance to the peer review process, which is conducted in accordance with scientific objectivity, rigor, and ethical values in academic publishing. Reviewers are key actors in maintaining the scientific quality and reliability of the journal. This guide summarizes the basic principles and best practices for reviewers who will contribute to the journal. The journal expects all reviewers to adhere to the ethical principles established by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).
All articles submitted to the journal are subject to a double-blind peer review process. Author(s) and reviewers do not know each other's identities. Each article is evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field to ensure impartiality.
To prevent conflicts of interest, articles submitted by members of the Editorial Board are reviewed by external editors. These editors are selected based on their qualifications and peer review experience. Confidentiality is maintained for all reviewers and external editors. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
In the first stage, submitted works are subject to a technical pre-review by the Editorial Board. Compliance with the journal's formal and submission rules is checked. Inappropriate works are returned to the author(s) with a request for technical revision. All articles submitted to the journal are subject to various checks throughout the peer review and publication processes, primarily using plagiarism detection software (iThenticate by CrossCheck). If the similarity report exceeds the 20% limit, excluding references (sources), the article is sent back to the author(s). Reviewers are responsible for informing the editors if they detect plagiarism in the articles sent to them for review.
Articles that pass the preliminary review are evaluated by the Editor-in-chief according to the scope and quality standards of the journal. Works that are not deemed suitable may be rejected at this stage.
Works that are deemed suitable are referred to the field editors. These editors are responsible for selecting suitable reviewers. Field editors may reject the article, send it for review, or request revisions prior to review.
Reviewer opinions are collected and evaluated by the field editors, and recommendations are submitted to the Editor-in-chief. If necessary, revised articles are resubmitted to the same reviewers to reach a final decision.
The Editor-in-chief has the final authority in all decisions.
In case of delays, author(s) are notified and given the right to withdraw their work. The editors make every effort to ensure that the process is carried out in a timely and efficient manner within the available resources. The goal is to provide a quick review and publication process for articles deemed suitable for publication. If a delay is anticipated, the author(s) are notified and a mutual schedule is established.
The journal informs the author(s) as early as possible about works that are excluded from review. This allows the author(s) to submit the work to another journal.
The aim is to respond to authors' inquiries about the status of their submissions in a timely and transparent manner.
The journal may also publish articles such as event reviews without peer review. The editor may offer comments and suggestions regarding the category under which the submitted article may be published in the journal; however, the final decision rests with the author and/or editor.
If the author(s) have made a request for withdrawal in good faith but have not received an official response within a certain period of time, they may consider the work withdrawn. However, in this case, it is recommended that they inform the journal in writing and allow a reasonable period of time for approval. The peer review process is very important for maintaining the quality of scientific publications. Reviewers should conduct their evaluations objectively and constructively.
- Review the article in an unbiased manner and in accordance with scientific integrity.
- Complete the review in a timely and thorough manner.
- Adhere to the principle of confidentiality and refrain from sharing the contents with third parties.
- Notify the editor of any conflicts of interest.
- Provide constructive, respectful, and scientifically based feedback.
2. Before Accepting the Invitation
- Relevance: Does the article fall within your area of academic expertise?
- Conflict of Interest: Do you have any academic, administrative, or personal ties to the author(s)?
- Timeframe: Can you complete the review within the specified timeframe (usually 2–4 weeks)?
- If you are not suitable, you are encouraged to suggest an alternative reviewer.
- Reviewer candidates are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the invitation. This transparency ensures the integrity of the process.
3. Ethics and Confidentiality
- Articles should be treated as confidential documents.
- Content should not be copied or shared with third parties without the author(s)' permission.
- The editor should be informed in cases of plagiarism, data fabrication, or publication ethics violations.
- Reviewer reports are not public and are kept confidential. If a reviewer suspects plagiarism or data theft, the Editorial Board will act in accordance with COPE guidelines. All correspondence between editors and reviewers is confidential and should not be shared.
4. Evaluation Criteria
- Scientific Contribution: Does the article provide an original contribution to cultural heritage, inventory studies, or the humanities?
- Are the theoretical foundations and research questions clear?
- Are the abstract, methods, findings, and references sufficient and organized?
- Is the language and style academic, and does it comply with the journal's writing rules?
5. Preparing the Reviewer Report
- General Evaluation: A brief comment on the purpose of the study.
- Main Comments: Theoretical, methodological, and structural deficiencies.
- Secondary Notes: Language, writing, sources, use of visuals.
- The article submitted by the author(s) is reviewed by at least two expert reviewers in the field, and in necessary cases, a third reviewer is assigned to determine the decision process. Publication Decision Options: Accepted for publication / Minor revisions / Major revisions / Not suitable for publication.
6. Timeframe
- Invitation period: 7 days.
- Acceptance/rejection notification: 15 (+15) days.
- Review period: 15 (+15) days.
- Additional time after reminder notification: +15 (+5) days.
7. Performance and Feedback
- The review period and quality of reviewers are monitored regularly.
- Feedback and training are provided when necessary.
8. Double-blind peer review
- The identities of reviewers and author(s) are kept confidential.
- No direct communication is established with author(s).
- Author(s) may suggest reviewers when submitting their work. However, it is entirely up to the editor to decide whether or not to invite the suggested reviewers.
9. Revision Evaluations
- Author(s) whose articles require “minor” or “major” revisions receive a detailed decision letter prepared by the Editor-in-Chief. This letter includes referee comments and a deadline for submitting the revised files.
- Revised articles are sent back to the referees if they request it.
- When resubmitting the article, the author(s) must respond to each referee comment in detail and point by point; they must explain the changes made and refer to the line numbers in the updated text. Changes made to the submitted document should be highlighted.
- Updated articles must be submitted within the specified time frame; otherwise, the publication review process will not continue.
- This is important for the integrity of the scientific process.
10. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- Detailed information on comprehensive principles and responsibilities regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence for reviewers can be found on the Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy page.
11. Recognition of Contribution
- Reviewers are presented with a certificate of appreciation.
- An annual list of reviewers is published.