Duties of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to accept or decline the review invitation sent by the Editor or ATED's Section Editors within seven days. Once they accept a review invitation, reviewers should complete the review process and upload the relevant files to ATED's journal management system within 20 days.
If reviewers believe they cannot conduct a fair review due to a conflict of interest, they must inform the Editor that they are unable to review the particular article.
Reviewers should carefully read the invitation letter/email sent by the Editor, as the Editor may request specific favors such as reviewing only the methods section of the article.
If reviewers have received any assistance from other individuals, they should inform the Editor and provide the names of those who assisted them. The ATED Editorial Board believes that including the names of individuals who assisted the reviewers in the list of reviewers is essential for publication ethics.
Reporting of Reviews
Review reports are expected to focus on the following aspects:
Does the article contribute significantly to the field of study?
Is the article scientifically up to date?
Review reports should be written in a critical and objective manner.
Reviewers are expected to focus on the evaluated text and refrain from commenting on the authors' shortcomings or inadequacies.
Reviewers are expected to provide detailed justifications and explanations by not only filling in the appropriate boxes with checkmarks on the article evaluation form but also writing about and highlighting any deficiencies, issues, problems, and negative aspects they identify in the assigned article.
If the Editor and the relevant Section Editor notice any typographical errors in the reviewers' reports, they have the right to intervene and make changes to the reports, removing any rude, inappropriate, or derogatory expressions or statements that characterize the authors as inadequate or ineffective.
Conflict of Interest
Authors may request the Editor not to assign specific individuals as reviewers due to a conflict of interest.
Additionally:
Individuals with whom the author(s) have previously shared or published their work,
Individuals who have assisted the author(s) in reading drafts of the given manuscript,
Individuals with whom the author(s) have had previous conflicts,
Individuals who could benefit financially from the publication of the given article,
Individuals working in the same institution (departments) as the author(s) will not be selected as reviewers unless there are no other options available.
Since the Editor may not be aware of all the aforementioned situations that might hinder reviewers from conducting a fair evaluation, reviewers are expected to inform the Editor if there is any issue that prevents them from providing an impartial review.
Publication Policy and Other Ethical Considerations
Although the Editor strives to identify ethical and other issues that violate ATED's publication policy concerning a particular manuscript in the process, they may not be aware of everything. Therefore, it is crucial for reviewers to inform the Editor if they encounter any problems.
Authors are also expected to affirm their adherence to research and publication ethics rules and behaviors.
When preparing an article based on their thesis, authors are expected to report the entire thesis or doctoral dissertation without slicing it or partially reporting the research and the data it contains.
Authors should also specify the contribution ratio of each researcher, express gratitude to funding sources, and provide a conflict of interest statement at the end of the article.
After the acceptance of the article for publication, all authors are requested to fill out and sign the "Copyright Transfer Form."
Providing Feedback to Reviewers
The final version of accepted articles is only sent to reviewers who expressed a desire to re-evaluate the article.
A reviewer may observe that the reviewed article does not reflect the criticisms and perspectives provided during the evaluation process. It is possible for other reviewers to present different perspectives, and the Editor may take these perspectives into consideration. In such cases, the reports of other reviewers may be sent.
Based on the review reports, the Editor may decide to take one of the following actions:
Accept the article for publication with minor/major revisions,
Initiate another round of review and request the authors to revise the article based on the reviewers' reports,
Reject the article.
Reviewers have the right to indicate in their reports whether the article deserves acceptance or rejection. Ultimately, the Editor, taking into account the strength and rationale of the arguments provided by both reviewers and authors, decides whether the article should be published or not.
