Journal of Anatolian Wildlife Sciences

Guidelines for Reviewers

 

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Dear Reviewers of " Journal of Anatolian Wildlife Sciences (JAWS)",

The peer review process is a crucial process for the seriousness of the journal that checks the quality, timeliness and validity of the articles published in our journal. This critical process involves the presentation of strong evidence (not hypothetical) for the originality of the study, its importance for the relevant field of science, and its conclusions. The main purpose of your evaluation is to provide the editor with the information needed to make a decision on whether to accept or reject the article for publication. This also means guiding authors on how to strengthen their articles if revision is possible. Therefore, the suggestions you send to the editor (acceptance, rejection, revision) and the author should be scientifically based and sufficiently explanatory.

Do not expect that the decision you have made about the article will be implemented exactly. Because this decision will be made by the editorial office after reviewing other reviewer evaluation and revision procedures requested from authors.

In our journal, the reviewer evaluation process is carried out as "double-blind peer-review". That is, the reviewers do not know who the authors are, and the authors do not have any information about who the reviewers are. After accepting our reviewer invitation, all material belonging to the article you will access should be considered confidential. If you notice a conflict of interest after the review begins, you can withdraw from the reviewer by informing the editor that it would be more appropriate for another reviewer to evaluate the manuscript. This also applies to situations where the authors try to reach you indirectly and influence your decision. In addition, reviewing the information under the "Guidelines for Authors" and "Ethical Principles and Publication Policy" links on the main page of our journal will help you in the evaluation process.

The period given to you to approve our invitation request is 6 days. The system will send you an automatic reminder on the 5th and 6th days. After the reviewer has approved our invitation, a 4-week evaluation schedule will begin to run. However, you will still receive automatic reminders on the 14th and 28th days.

In accordance with the evaluation procedure of our journal, the articles sent to you will have passed two preliminary evaluations;

1- "Initial review" by the editorial office

2- "Pre-evaluation" by the field editor

Therefore, you can see tags such as “Rev-1”, “Rev-2” next to the article IDs in the files sent to you indicating that they were previously evaluated. Do not take this into account and focus entirely on your own assessment.

During the reviewer evaluation phase, at least two reviewers are appointed for the relevant article. When the reviewer reports are submitted to the authors, according to the suggestions and criticisms of the field editors and reviewers, the authors make the requested revisions in the article and upload them to the system together with a rebuttal letter containing the actions they have made. In some cases, the editor may send the "revised file" to a third reviewer. This is an additional step that contributes to the editor's final decision (acceptance or rejection) on the article.

Manuscript Evaluation Form

The "Article Evaluation Form" that you can access in the system consists of three main sections. Since the same form is used in all article categories (research, review, observation), you can only use the relevant fields depending on the nature of the article.

Section 1 - General Evaluation: In this section, you can make the markings that suit you in the fields related to the article components.

Section 2 - Comments: This section contains areas where you can add as much text as you want about the general article and each of its subcomponents.

Section 3 - Decision: You can use one of the three main decision options in this section.

1- Minor Revision

2- Major Revision

3- Reject

For Minor or Major Revision decisions, you must also tick one of the options "I want/do not want to see it again after revision".

The "Acceptable as it Stands" is an option you can mark in cases where you do not have any other suggestions for the article you are re-evaluating after the revision. This option should not be used in articles that have been evaluated for the first time.

In your major revision request, you can also suggest that the article is not suitable for the category it is presented in, so it can be evaluated in another category. For example, an article submitted as "Original Research" can only be evaluated in the "Short Communication" category.

Reject decisions must be based on an appropriate scientific justification. This justification may also include an ethical problem with the article.

When submitting your review, you can add as much text as you want to the "Recommendations to the editor" and " Recommendations to authors" fields on the system. Please note that some changes may be made in the notes you want the authors to see, if necessary, in terms of expressions that would not be considered sharp or appropriate by the editorial staff. You can also add the article file you are working on or a text file you will create to the system (you can only upload 1 file).

Some Suggestions for Evaluation

  • Manuscript title: It should provide sufficient information about the material and methods of the article and should not contain unnecessary information. It would be a more appropriate approach to suggest an alternative title to the author for the title you do not find sufficient. For example, for an article that is already research, the words such as "investigation" and "studies on" in the title will reduce the impact power of that article.
  • Abstract: The importance of the study, the purpose, the methods used, the findings obtained, the result and its scientific/practical importance should be explained, according to the article category, it should be within the scope specified in our writing rules. Keywords should be study specific.
  • Introduction: The authors should make three-step editing in this section. The scientific importance of the selected subject and the information revealed by previous studies should be presented concisely in the first paragraph, but information that is not relevant to the subject should not be included. In the second paragraph, the scientific problem should be defined about the subject of the study and a concrete scientific question should be created (justification). The third paragraph should contain the hypothesis and purpose of the study with a concise but objective statement. Visual presentations such as figures, tables, etc. should not be included in this section.
  • Material and Methods: By creating subheadings that complement each other, the materials and methods of the study should be explained clearly. The first title or paragraph should include the description of the ethical permissions required for the study, other subheadings should include material selection and grouping, the methods listed for the experiment protocol, data analysis and statistical analysis methods. By using appropriate visual materials (such as pictures, tables), the method can be sufficiently understood by the reader.
  • Results: The results obtained from the research should be presented in a systematic order and with an appropriate expression. A presentation can also be made under sub-headings depending on the nature of the study. In this section, no comments should be made about the findings. Findings can be supported by figures and tables. However, tables and figures should be used as an additional method of expression, and repeated expressions of the same expressions with texts, tables and figures should not be considered appropriate by the reviewer.
  • Discussion: The conclusions reached by considering the hypothesis, purpose and findings of the study, the differences with other studies, possible reasons and the scientific/practical results of the study should be presented in an effective and understandable way. While discussing the results of the study, referring to other studies and transferring the data of that study numerically, expressions such as "compatible/incompatible with other studies" should be avoided while comparing these with the study data. Subtitles, figures and tables cannot be used in this section. Under no circumstances can visual materials of another study be included. The last paragraph of the discussion should contain the conclusion information of the study. It is generally preferred that this be limited to a few sentences. The scientific result of the study and its importance, its contribution to practice and its potential to serve as a reference for future studies should be expressed concisely.
  • References: It should be written in accordance with our spelling rules and should be used completely in the text. Reviewers (within the principle of impartiality) may suggest new sources to strengthen the article or criticize if inappropriate sources were used.
  • Page Size of the Article: Depending on the nature of the article, the limits foreseen in the writing rules may be exceeded. However, regardless of the limits specified in our writing rules (the article is subject to preliminary evaluation by the editorial aspect), criticism may be directed about the scope of the article or its parts (such as shortening, not sufficient).
  • Language and Speech: Reviewers can add their constructive suggestions and criticisms in terms of grammar and expression to the evaluation reports.