Notes For Reviewers

1. Accepting a Review Invitation

If you have received an invitation to review for Kemal Tahir Çalışmaları, please respond within 3 working days. When considering the invitation please check the following:

• Is the subject of the work within your area of expertise?
• Can you complete the review within the proposed time (4 weeks)?
• Is there any conflict of interest between you and the author(s)?

Where you need to decline the invitation, please assist the editor by suggesting, where possible, another expert in the same area.

2. Conflict of Interest Declaration

The following relationships count as a conflict of interest and must be reported to the editor before the review is accepted:

• Holding a post at the same institution as the author(s)
• A shared publication record with the author(s) within the past three years
• An advisor–student relationship with the author(s) (current or past)
• Family ties or a close personal relationship
• A direct financial interest related to the subject of the work
• Current professional competition with the author(s)

3. Confidentiality and Restriction on AI Use

All information you acquire as a reviewer (the submission, the review process, editorial correspondence) is confidential. Please do not share the submission with third parties, do not use it in scholarly debate and do not cite it until publication.

4. Evaluation Principles

Your review should rest on concrete scholarly criteria rather than personal opinion. Please consider the following dimensions when conducting your evaluation:

• Originality: Does the work make a new contribution to the field?
• Research question: Is the question clear, meaningful and answerable?
• Theoretical framework: Is the framework compatible with the research question?
• Method: Is the method appropriate to the question and rigorously applied?
• Coherence of argument: Is the logical relationship between argument and evidence sound?
• Use of sources: Is there sufficient engagement with the relevant literature? Are citations apposite?
• Conclusion: Is the conclusion proportionate to the findings, neither overstated nor undersupplied?
• Writing and presentation: Do the language and form serve readability?

5. Structure of the Review Report

You are asked to prepare your review using the Reviewer Evaluation Form provided by the journal. The form consists of three main parts:

5.1 Review Visible to the Author

• Summary of the work (120–180 words): Summarise the aim, theoretical framework, method and key findings in your own words. This section confirms that you have read the text and gives the author a sense of how the reviewer reads the work.
• General evaluation and contribution: Write your view of the originality, contribution and strengths of the work in 1–2 paragraphs. Naming the strengths before the criticisms matters for reviewing ethics.
• Major criticisms (numbered): Number the structural concerns that must be addressed before publication (research question–method fit, theoretical framework, sampling, analysis, interpretation, conclusion). For each item give the author a concrete suggestion for improvement.
• Minor criticisms (numbered): Number issues of language, style, presentation of tables/figures, citation gaps and formatting. Providing page and line numbers will make the author’s work easier.
• Constructive suggestions (optional): Complementary sources, alternative methods or directions for future research.

5.2 Editor-only Section (Confidential)

Write here any views you do not wish to share with the author (reservations about the review process, the fit of the work with the journal’s profile, reviewer suggestions, ethical concerns, suspicions of plagiarism or self-plagiarism, details of any conflict of interest). This section is read only by the editor.

5.3 Recommended Decision and Rationale

Indicate your recommended decision by selecting one of the five options below and summarise your reasoning in 2–3 sentences (see § 6).

6. Recommended Decision

• Accept: Publishable in present form.
• Minor revision: Acceptable after minor changes; further peer review not required.
• Major revision: Significant changes required; the revised version is open to further peer review.
• Reject and resubmit: Rejected in present form; may be resubmitted after substantial revision.
• Reject: Not suitable for the journal’s profile or for scholarly standards.

7. Review Timeline

The review report is due 4 weeks after the invitation is accepted. If the report cannot be completed within this period the editor must be contacted in advance; an extension may be requested where necessary. In cases of recurrent delay the editor reserves the right to assign another reviewer.

8. Reviewer Recognition

Scholars who complete a review for the journal may, upon request, receive a Reviewer Contribution Certificate. This certificate is provided for use in academic incentive and promotion processes. Because reviewer confidentiality is paramount, the journal does not publish an annual list of reviewers or similar collective notices.