Reviewer & Editor Guideline

REVIEWER’S GUIDE

Recognising that IJPW aims to publish original and important articles, we ask reviewers to help us evaluate the article submissions we receive.
Below are some tips on the article review process, how to become a reviewer, and how to write a good review. Also included are our refereeing terms and conditions, based on the COPE Principles, which provide more information on how to conduct objective and constructive refereeing.
IJPW has adopted a double-blind review model.

Selection of Reviewers

The reviewers are selected among experts who have a PhD degree in the field of science to which the article relates and who have publications. The information of the experts from Turkish universities can be accessed from YÖK Academic website, and the information of the experts from abroad can be accessed from Publons.

 

Duties and Responsibilities of the Reviewers

1. Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias and take this into account when reviewing an article. The reviewer should clearly express his/her judgements in support of his/her decision.
2. Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with the opportunity to improve the manuscript. In this respect, a referee who feels inadequate in reviewing an article or who thinks that he/she cannot complete the review in a short time should not accept the referee's invitation.
3. Confidentiality: All manuscripts submitted to the journal for review must remain secret. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or communicate directly with the authors. Information contained in the manuscript should not be used by a reviewer in his/her own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.
4. Sensitivity to the Ethical Conduct of Research and Publication: Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
5. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript with potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationship with the authors or the organisations with which the manuscript is affiliated.
6. Reviewer Citation Request: If a reviewer suggests that an author include citations to the reviewer’s (or their collaborators') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not for the purpose of increasing the referee's citation count or the visibility of their work. See also the Code of Ethics for Referees.

 

Making a Review

Reviewers' evaluations should be objective. During the referee process, referees are expected to make their evaluations taking into account the following points:

• Does the article contain new and important information?
• Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
• Is the methodology described in a coherent and understandable way?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions substantiated by the findings?
• Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality adequate?
• Do the abstract/abstract/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

EDITOR’S GUIDE

 

Selection of Editors

Editors are selected among experts who have a PhD degree and have publications in accordance with the scope of the journal.

 Turkish Editors' Workshop Group

International Journal of Positivity & Well-Being encourages the editors to communicate with other editors, as they think it will be useful for them. Our editors are members of the Turkish Editors Workshop Group.

Duties and Responsibilities of the Editors

Coordinating the Referee Process
The editor should ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial, and timely. Research articles should be reviewed by at least two external reviewers, and the editor should seek additional feedback when necessary.

Selection of Referees
The Editor will select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for appropriate, inclusive, and diverse representation. The Editor will follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent reviewers.

Protection of Confidentiality
The editor must maintain the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the authors and reviewers concerned. In exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where the editor deems it necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct.  The editor must protect the identities of reviewers. Information contained in a submitted manuscript should not be used in the editor's own research without the express written permission of the author. Proprietary information or ideas obtained during the refereeing process should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.

Neutrality
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Investigation of Allegations
An editor who finds convincing evidence of ethical violations should contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to have the manuscript corrected, retracted, or otherwise amended.

Conflict of Interest
The editor should not be involved in decisions about manuscripts written by him/herself or by family members. Furthermore, such a paper should be subject to all the usual procedures of the journal. The editor should follow the ICMJE guidelines on disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.
Publication Decision
The editor is responsible for reviewing the referee reports and deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The editor must comply with the policies determined by the Editorial Board.

Journal Citation Request
The editor should not attempt to influence the ranking of the journal by artificially increasing any journal metric. The editor will not request citations of articles from his/her journal or any other journal, except for scientific reasons.
Correction, Retraction, and Publication of an Expression of Concern
Editors may consider publishing a correction if minor errors are detected in the published article that do not affect the findings, interpretations, or conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the manuscript if there are major errors or violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. Editors should consider issuing a statement of concern if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and that the authors' institutions have not investigated the incident, if the possible investigation seems unfair or inconclusive, or if there is a possibility of research or publication misconduct by the authors. COPE and ICJME guidelines are taken into account regarding correction, retraction, or expression of concern.

 

Guidance for reviewing process

Before the reviewing process

 Consider the following:

• Does the article align with your field of expertise? Please consider accepting this request only if you are confident in your ability to deliver a review of exceptional
• Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Please ensure that you provide this information to the editor when you provide your
• Do you possess the availability to allocate time for a particular matter? Engaging in the process of reviewing might require a substantial amount of effort. Prior to making a commitment, it is imperative to ascertain one's ability to adhere to the designated date.

Please promptly respond to the invitation, even if your response is to reject it. Any delay in your decision may impede the review process and result in increased waiting time for the author. In the event that you want to decline the invitation, it would be beneficial if you could offer recommendations for alternative reviewers.

 Reviewing process

Confidential material

 In the event of acceptance, it is imperative to handle the contents received with the utmost confidentiality. Consequently, it is impermissible to disseminate these materials to anyone without obtaining explicit consent from the editor. Given the secret nature of peer review, it is imperative that one refrain from disseminating any material pertaining to the review without explicit consent from the editors and authors involved.

How to log in and access your review

 The review process will be facilitated using the Open Journal Submission System (OJS). To retrieve the document and submit your review, kindly click on the hyperlink provided within the email invitation you have received. This will direct you to the submission/reviewing mechanism.

Journal-specific instructions

Before writing your report, read the author guidelines in the journal. The following suggestions pertain to effectively managing various sections of the academic paper.

Methodology

When reviewing the article, it is advisable to begin by examining the methods section if the study being reported is experimental in nature. The aforementioned instances are deemed significant deficiencies and warrant identification for further attention.

• Methodology lacking validity and reliability
• Method that has been debunked and discredited
• Missing processes are known to be influential in the area of reported The absence of certain processes has been identified as having a significant impact on the field of documented research.
• A conclusion is drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the

In analytical papers, it is imperative to thoroughly scrutinise the sample report since it is a required component in research that involves time-dependent variables. In qualitative research, it is imperative to ensure the inclusion of systematic data analysis alongside adequate descriptive elements, which should be supplemented by significant quotes extracted from interviews in addition to the author's narrative.

Ethical considerations

 It is imperative to ensure that experiments involving patient or animal data are adequately documented. The author's elucidation of the ethical process holds significant importance. In human research, it is imperative to provide participants with comprehensive and comprehensible explanations pertaining to the consent form, information dissemination, voluntary participation, and other ethical protocols.

Overview: Read and mark the Reviewer Form carefully and make the necessary suggestions.

Structuring your review 

 The reviewer's assessment will help the editor make an informed decision regarding the publication of the article. Additionally, this will assist the author in enhancing their content. It is imperative to provide an overarching evaluation and broad observations of the article.

Reviewer Form:

 Read and mark the Reviewer Form carefully, and make your recommendations. The reviewer form will provide guidance.

Your recommendation

 When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:

Below are the decisions that assigned reviewers can state :

• Accept it as it
• Revisions Required (Accept with minor revisions: Revisions are checked by the editors)
• Resubmit for Review (Major revisions: The manuscript will be reviewed for the second time)
• Reject (Not recommended for publication in the journal)

If you are recommending a revision, it is imperative to provide the author with a comprehensive and well-founded rationale for the necessity of such a modification. Similarly, if you are declining a manuscript, it is essential to elucidate your reasoning in the report.