Reviewers and Writers Guide

Referee Guide

Considering that Diwan journal aims to publish original and important articles, we ask the referees to help in evaluating the article applications we receive.
Below is the article review process, how to become a reviewer, and advice on how to write a good review. We also have arbitration terms and conditions based on the COPE Principles, which provide further information on how to conduct an objective and constructive arbitration.
Diwan journal has adopted the double-blind referee model.

Selection of Referees
Referees are selected among experts who have a Phd degree and have published publications in the field of science to which the article relates.

Duties and Responsibilities of Referees
1) Objectivity: Reviews should be made objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any possible personal bias and take this into account when reviewing a manuscript. The referee must clearly express his/her evaluations supporting his/her decision.
2) Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer review helps the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with the opportunity to improve the article. In this respect, a referee who feels inadequate to review an article or who thinks that he will not be able to complete the review in a short time should not accept the referee invitation.
3) Confidentiality: All articles that reach the journal for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or contact the authors directly. The information contained in the study should not be used by a reviewer in his or her own research without the express 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: Referees should be careful about possible ethical issues in the article and report them to the editor.
5) Conflict of Interest: Referees should not agree to review an article with possible conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with the authors or the institutions to which the articles are affiliated.
6) Referee Citation Request: If a reviewer recommends that an author include references to the reviewer’s (or their collaborators’) work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not for the purpose of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or increasing the visibility of their work. See also Code of Ethics for Referees

Making a Review
The referees’ evaluations must be objective. During the arbitration process, referees are expected to make their evaluations by taking the following points into consideration.
1) Does the article contain new and important information?
2) Does the abstract clearly and neatly describe the content of the article?
3) Is the method described in a complete and understandable manner?
4) Are the interpretations and conclusions made substantiated by the findings?
5) Are sufficient references given to other studies in the field?
6) Is the language quality sufficient?
7) Do Abstract/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

Editor’s Guide

Editors Selection
Editors are selected among experts who have a doctoral degree and have published publications in accordance with the publication scope of the journal.

Türkiye Editors Workshop Group
Diwan Magazine encourages editors to communicate with other editors, thinking that it will be useful for them. Our Editor-in-Chief is a member of the Türkiye Editors Workshop Group.

Responsibilities of Editors
Coordinating the Arbitration Process the editor must ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial and timely. Research articles should be reviewed by at least two external referees, and the editor should seek additional opinions when necessary.

Determination of Arbitrators
Editor; will select arbitrators 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 materials submitted to the journal and all communications with referees, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. In exceptional cases 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 identities of reviewers. Information contained in a submitted article 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 arbitration process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal benefit.

Editors must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Investigation of Allegations
An editor who finds convincing evidence of an ethical violation should contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to arrange for the article to be corrected, retracted, or other correction made.

Conflict of Interest
The editor should not be involved in decisions regarding articles written by himself or his family members. Additionally, such work must be subject to all the journal’s usual procedures. The editor must follow ICMJE guidelines regarding disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

Publication Decision
The editor is responsible for reviewing the referee reports and deciding which of the articles sent to the journal should be published. The editor must comply with the policies determined by the Editorial Board.

Journal Citation Request
The editor should not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. The editor will not request references to articles from his own journal or another journal, except for scientific reasons.

Correction, Retraction, Expression of Concern
Editors may consider publishing corrections if minor errors are identified in the published article that do not affect the findings, interpretations, or conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the manuscript in the case of major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. If there is potential for misuse of research or publication by authors, if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and the authors’ institutions have not investigated the incident, or if the potential investigation appears unfair or inconclusive, editors should consider issuing an expression of concern. Regarding corrections, retractions or expressions of concern, COPE and ICJME guidelines are taken into account.