Blind Peer-Review System and the Evaluation Process
At least three referees are appointed by the editor(s) according to the content of the studies and the expertise of the referees for the review of the publications. All referee evaluation reports are sent electronically, anonymously. Double Blind Peer Reviewing directly affect the quality of academic publications. Referees cannot contact the authors directly, evaluation and referee reports are submitted through the journal management system. In this process, evaluation forms and referee reports are sent to the author(s) through the editor. Double-blind refereeing helps editors make decisions in dialogue with authors. At the same time, authors also have the opportunity to improve their work by obtaining important information about their work.

Decision Making Processes
Editors and publisher send all submitted work to at least three referees who are experts in their fields for evaluation. After the completion of the review process, the editor-in-chief decides which works to be published, taking into account the accuracy of the study, its importance for researchers and readers, referee reports and legal regulations such as insult, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief may take advice from other editors or referees while making this decision.

A referee who is invited to make a referee evaluation should inform the editor as soon as possible whether they can referee for the relevant work.

Studies sent to referees for evaluation should be considered confidential. Studies should not be shown to others and their content should not be discussed. When necessary, referees may seek advice from other colleagues, with the permission of the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief may grant this permission only in exceptional circumstances. The confidentiality rule includes people who refuse to referee.

The Principle of Objectivity
No personal criticism should be made towards the authors during the evaluation process. Evaluations should be made objectively and in a way that contributes to the development of the studies.

Citing a Source
The referees are obliged to notify the authors of any citations that are not cited in the study. Referees should pay particular attention to works that are not cited in the field, or citations that overlap with similar works. Referees should inform editors if publications that are similar to any previously published work or information are noticed.

Notifying and Conflicts of Interest
Referees should not agree to review and inform editors of the situation if they have any collaborative connections with any author, company or institution they have been charged with reviewing their work. Referees cannot use unpublished works or parts of the works submitted for evaluation in their own studies without the written consent of the author(s). Information and ideas obtained during evaluation should be kept confidential by the referees and not used for their own benefit. These rules also bind those who do not accept the role of referee.

Evaluation Process
All the articles that are sent to Journal of Sociological Context are put to preliminary consideration for the journal’s aim and objective suitability and agreeing to general terms. Plagiarism, copy and duplicate check is also done by the committee in this step. In case such ethical issues are detected, action will be taken in the framework of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. At this stage, by the result of preliminary consideration the article may be required to edit, declined or sent to at least 3 referees.

The authors’ personal and contact information are hidden in order to provide author-referee confidentiality by Double Blind Peer Reviewing method analysis. Referees should make the evaluation within 15 days. If the referee did not provide an answer within the given time period, the referee’s assignment on the article would be ceased. New referee having the same criteria will be assigned for the article by the editor. After the referee evaluation, the editor may decline or accept the article or require editing of the article. If any of the referees’ opinion is negative, the article may be sent to a fourth independent referee.

Articles to be edited should be sent to the journal with the corrections within 10 days. If there is no answer within the given period and no extension time is required with an excuse, the articles’ processes will be ceased. The articles coming to the editor after editing for final evaluation are presented to referee evaluation provided the referees want to see the editing. For other cases, they may be rejected with editor initiative or accepted and published.
Translate »