The referee guide has been prepared in accordance with the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) and YÖK Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive, in order to guide the referees during the evaluation process of the articles sent to the Journal of Advanced Movement History and Culture Studies, to maintain scientific quality standards and to reinforce ethical principles.
1. Acceptance of the Invitation and Prerequisites
Expertise Match: Upon reviewing the title and abstract of the assigned manuscript, if the reviewer finds that the subject is outside their area of expertise or feels insufficiently knowledgeable about the topic, they should decline the invitation.
Time Management: The reviewer should consider the stipulated time for evaluation (default is 15-20 days). If they cannot complete the report within this period, they should either request an extension from the editor or decline the task immediately. Delayed reports negatively affect the currency of the publication and the motivation of the author.
Conflict of Interest Check: If the reviewer works at the same institution as the author, has collaborated recently, served as the author's thesis advisor, or has any financial/political conflict of interest regarding the work, they must notify the editor and recuse themselves from the evaluation.
2. Ethical Responsibilities and Confidentiality
Data Confidentiality: A manuscript under review is unpublished data. The reviewer must not copy the work, share it with third parties, or use it for personal purposes in any way.
Suspicion of Plagiarism: If the reviewer detects ethical violations such as unreferenced citations, data fabrication, or salami slicing, they must immediately report this to the editor with supporting evidence.
Double-Blind Rule: The reviewer should not attempt to identify the author. If there are expressions within the text that reveal the author's identity (e.g., "As we stated in our previous study..."), this should be brought to the editor's attention.
3. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria (Question Set)
Reviewers are expected to seek answers to the following questions while examining the manuscript:
A. Title, Abstract, and Keywords
Does the title fully and clearly reflect the content of the study?
Does the Abstract cover the purpose, method, and main findings of the study? does it give the reader a sufficient idea about the article?
Are the keywords appropriate for ensuring the study's discoverability (indexing) in the literature?
B. Introduction and Literature Review
Is the research problem or hypothesis clearly stated?
Is the existing literature on the subject sufficiently reviewed? Have current and primary sources been accessed?
Is the gap in the literature that the study aims to fill (original value) explained?
C. Methodology
Is the chosen research method (qualitative, quantitative, document analysis, etc.) appropriate for elucidating the subject?
Are the usage, translation, and interpretation of historical documents in compliance with scientific criteria?
(If applicable) Have the necessary ethics committee approvals been obtained for fieldwork or interviews?
D. Findings and Discussion
Are the obtained findings consistent with the collected data/documents?
Has the author merely listed the findings, or have they discussed them by comparing them with the literature?
Do the maps, tables, graphs, or images used support the text, and are their sources cited?
E. Conclusion and Recommendations
Is the conclusion section based on the findings, or does it contain generalizations unsupported by data?
Does the study make a concrete contribution to the field of history and culture studies?
Constructive Criticism: The report should not be written in a language that humiliates or discourages the author, but rather in a tone that points out deficiencies and guides improvement. (e.g., Instead of saying "This work is very bad," one should say "The theoretical infrastructure of the study needs to be strengthened with the following sources.")
Concrete Justification: Especially for "Decline" or "Major Revision" decisions, the reasons for the decision should be explained item by item, citing page/paragraph numbers.
5. Final Decision Options
After completing the review, the reviewer submits one of the following recommendations to the editor:
Accept Submission: The work is scientifically sufficient; no changes are required.
Minor Revisions: Spelling errors, bibliography formatting, or minor expression disorders need to be corrected. (Usually, a second reviewer check is not required; editorial control suffices.)
Major Revisions: There are deficiencies in methodology, insufficient literature, or analysis errors. The author needs to revise the work significantly. (The work is sent back to the same reviewer after corrections.)
Resubmit for Review: The work has potential, but it has so many deficiencies that it needs to be rewritten and enter the process as if it were a new article.
Decline Submission: The work lacks scientific quality, is not original, or does not fit the scope of the journal.
System Login
The steps that reviewers should follow to evaluate an article submitted through the system:
Login with your username and password.
Log in by selecting the Ileri Hareket in the top menu.
Click on the "Articles in Process" button on the left side.
On the page that opens, click on the name of the article you are asked to evaluate.
On the new page that opens, click on one of the options to accept/reject to evaluate the candidate article.
After accepting the evaluation, you can download the article file by clicking on the "Evaluation Version" title in the dialog section. You can evaluate the article by clicking on the "Fill and Submit Form" link on the same page.
After completing the entire form, you must click the "Save and Finish" button.
If there is an additional file that you have made corrections on, please upload it to the system from the add/send file section.