Guide for Reviewers

To evaluate an article sent from the system, follow the steps below:

  • Login with your ID and password.
  • Enter the Journal Panel of Sakarya Journal of Mathematics (SJM) from the My Journals section.
  • Log in to the reviewer panel.
  • Click the title of the article appointed for peer review by you from the new invitation section.
  • Acceptance or denial of the peer review will ask to you in the page that will pop-up. For the accept of peer review please click the “Accept the Review” that in the green section.
  • You will see the full article in the “Documents” after accept review.
  • After reviewing the article, please fill out the review form in the “Reviews” section. Upload the review file if there is one.
  • Lastly, click the button “Send the Review” that spots the right side of the page.


Note to Referees:

  • Reviewers must take into account, after accepting peer-reviewing on the system, the “Responsibilities of reviewer and ethical principles to be followed” and “Reviewing Processes.”
  • Reviewers should only accept reviewing of articles for which they have the necessary expertise to perform an appropriate review, can respect the confidentiality of blind peer review, and keep the details of the article confidential at all times.
  • Reviewers invited for article review are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the review within 7 days. The reviewer who does not make a decision at the end of this period is deemed to have rejected the review, and the editor appoints a new reviewer. The reviewer who accepts the review is expected to express their opinions within 15 days from the date of invitation acceptance. An additional period of up to 7 days is given to the referee who does not complete the review process within this period, if the reviewer requests. If the referee does not request additional time, a new referee can be appointed.
  • Each reviewer who accepts the invitation to review is asked to fill in a review form and declare the acceptance or rejection opinions about the article by providing concrete reasons.
  • The referees must answer all the questions in the evaluation form. These questions are about the article's title consistency, language, plagiarism, literature review, purpose, accuracy of information, use of up-to-date sources, title-content consistency, originality of the article, etc. In addition, the referees are asked to provide a detailed explanation of their opinions about the article.
  • The reviewers give an opinion on all of these issues by choosing one of the options: Yes, No, or Need Revision. The referees do not need to approve all of these issues in order for the article to be published. However, in the review form, the suggestions regarding the parts given as “No” and “Need Revision”, and other suggestions to the author should be stated in the "Note to the Author" section.


After completing this form, the referees can make the following decisions:

  • Revise Manuscript (Major Revision)
  • Revise Manuscript (Minor Revision)
  • The article is not suitable for publication (Reject)
  • The article can be published in its current form (Accept)


Important Notes

  • SJM conducts two external peer-reviewers outside of the editorial board of the journal.
  • If one of the peer review reports is positive and the other is negative, the article is sent to a third reviewer.
  • A single peer review report is sufficient for the rejection of a manuscript, but at least two peer review reports are required for its acceptance.
  • If one of the peer review reports "Accept" or "Minor Revision" and the other "Major Revision" and the editor's opinion favors the acceptance of the article, the manuscript is sent to the same reviewer after the author makes the corrections. The article is rejected or sent to a third peer reviewer depending on the reviewer's opinion who has issued the report with a "Major Revision" requirement.
  • The reviewer requesting revision may request to re-evaluate the article after revision. An additional 15 days are given to the reviewer for this evaluation.
  • Reviewers can contact the editor via the DergiPark messages section for further guidance or to report any suspected violations. The correspondence here is not seen by the authors.
  • The data of the articles based on field research or data analysis can be requested from the editor by the referee for a healthy review of the analyses in the article. The journal editor communicates with the author in this regard and transmits the data to the reviewer.
  • Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors, and/or research funders. When a conflict of interest is foreseen, the referee should contact the editorial board and indicate a possible conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into account in any conflicts of interest that may arise.
  • Reviewers cannot make use of the data of the articles they have reviewed before they are published or share this data with others.
  • The names of the reviewers who make evaluations in the journal are not disclosed/published.


Peer-Review Process

Articles can be submitted to the SJM by registering in the "Article Management System" on web site.
Articles sent by e-mail will not be taken into consideration.

Pre-Review and Plagiarism Checking
The journal's compliance with the writing rules is examined, and a similarity check is made to prevent plagiarism. Similarity software is used in the checking process. The overall similarity rate should be less than 30%, If the similarity rate is more than 30%, the study is either rejected or sent back to the author to reduce the similarity rate. The pre-review is completed within a maximum of 7 days.

Editor/Associate Editor Review
After the study passes the stages of pre-review and similarity checking, it is reviewed by the relevant editor/associated editor in terms of subject, scope, language use, and academic competence. This review is completed within a maximum of 30 days.

Peer Review Process (Double-Blind Peer Review)
Studies that pass the pre-review and editorial review undergo a confidential double-blind peer review process. Within the double-blind strategy, the identity of the peer reviewer is concealed from the author submitting publications to the journal. Similarly, the peer reviewers do not know who wrote the article they are reviewing. In other words, the peer review process is conducted by keeping both authors and peer reviewers anonymous to each other. Articles are sent to at least two referees for evaluation. The reports are also stored in the Article Management System.

Author's Revision
Authors consider the feedback, criticisms, and recommendations of the reviewer and the Editorial Board. They have the right to appeal with their justifications in case of any disagreement. Authors edit the article as per the reports and upload the final version of the article to the system.

Editorial Board Review
The editors checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text. If there is a “Major Revision” requirement in the peer review reports, they send the article to the relevant peer reviewer. If there is an "Acceptance" or "Minor Revision" requirement and the revisions are completed, they can submit the article for language checks (The checking process is completed within a maximum of 7 days.). If they detect that the corrections have not been made, they re-send the article to the author. They may reject the article if the author does not make the corrections again. Articles that are not accepted for publication are not deleted from the system. Their processes and files are stored in the system.

The articles that pass technical, academic, and linguistic reviews are examined by the Editorial Board, and the final publication status is determined. In case of any objection from the members, the Board decides by a majority of votes.

English Language Checks
Studies that pass the language control are reviewed by the English Language Editor, and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The checking process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Typesetting and Layout Process
The journal undertakes the typesetting and layout processes of the studies decided to be published by the Editorial Board.

Last Update Time: 4/2/25, 10:23:46 AM