Reviewer Guideline

We would like to thank the academics who contributed to the evaluation of the studies submitted to the Journal InHealth Theory . 

1-The importance of peer review

Peer review is an important part of the evaluation process that contributes to the improvement of publications and the prevention of possible errors. In order for a study to be a scientific publication, referee review is required. Studies sent to our InHealth Theory journal are evaluated by expert academicians in the field. Studies sent to our InHealth Theory journal are first checked to see if the files sent are sent according to our journal writing rules. Studies that comply with our journal policy are sent to expert referees for evaluation after editorial control. At least two review reports are completed for each study. If deemed necessary, additional referee reviews may be requested after the referee reviews. Our journal is based on double-blind peer review.

2-The profile

The evaluations of the referees are important for the development of science. In this regard, referees should primarily follow the COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-v2_0.pdf). Referees should primarily evaluate within the specified time, in a transparent and ethical manner. The following criteria are taken into account when appointing a referee for an academician in the role of referee;

-The referee must have a PhD.

-He/she should not work at the same institution as the author.

-There should be no conflict of interest. The referee should not have any conflict of interest with the editor, author, or publisher.

-The author and the referee should not have any joint publications in the past.

-The referee should have at least one publication in the relevant field.

3-Referee certificate

A certificate of appreciation is sent to the referees who evaluated the InHealth Theory journal.

4-Referee invitation

For the studies submitted to the InHealth Theory journal, the referees are determined by the editorial board during the preliminary check. An e-mail is sent to the referees from our website. The summary of the study is included in the e-mail sent. Invited referees are asked to consider the following situations.

-You should accept or decline the invitation as soon as possible, considering that the authors of the study may have needs such as assignment, associate professorship application, promotion, etc.

-If you cannot evaluate the study, you should state the reasons. If possible, you can suggest someone who can.

-If the evaluation of the study will take a long time, ask for additional time in advance.

5-Referee confidentiality

InHealth Theory has a double-blind peer review process. In this case, reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identities in the studies they review. Reviewers should not use any part of the study, including the abstract, elsewhere and should keep the study confidential.

6-Conflict of interest

Reviewers are required to notify the editor of any potential conflicts of interest. If they are unsure whether a situation is a conflict of interest, they should notify the editor. The following are some of the major conflicts of interest.

-If the referee has previously evaluated the same article in another journal, in this case, he/she may accept the invitation thinking that the study has been revised again. This situation should not be considered as a conflict of interest.

-If the referee will experience a financial or moral loss due to the publication of the study, he/she must notify the editor.

-If the referee has any personal relationship or competition with the authors, he/she must notify the editor.

-The referee should not have published with the authors before.

-Reviewers should not be working at the same institution as the authors.

7-Suggestions for preparing the peer review report

 

Referees should write explanations and create a report according to the language of the study. The referee should read the entire article. The referee should critically evaluate the article. Referee comments should be understandable, clear and detailed. Referees should not suggest citations to their own, their colleagues', another author's and our journal's studies unless necessary. Referees should guide authors, prepare reports that will improve them and should not write derogatory comments. Referees should not use artificial intelligence when preparing an evaluation report. Evaluating the study with artificial intelligence may cause a breach of confidentiality. Referees can review the COPE Ethical Principles for Peer Reviewers (https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf) when evaluating studies.

You can review the following questions by considering them while evaluating;

-Is the article presented in a well-designed and appropriate manner for the field?

-Are the references mostly from the last 5 years (new publications) and related publications?

-Are the results of the article reproducible?

-Is the research methodology adequately detailed? (Purpose, model, hypothesis/research question, universe, sample, scales, data analysis criteria, data collection, etc.)

-Is the design of the article suitable for testing hypotheses or research questions?

-Are the figures and tables appropriate? Is their interpretation appropriate?

-Are the results sufficiently examined? Have the results been compared with the literature?

-Are limitations, assumptions, and suggestions for future studies given?

-Are there ethical statements?

The referee may suggest that the article does not fit the scope of the journal and that it would be appropriate to publish in another journal. In this case, the referee may transfer the evaluation report to another journal. If the referee detects a situation that violates the ethical research principles regarding the article (abuse, forgery, plagiarism, etc.), he/she must inform the editor. The referee should consider the following points when rating an article;

-Novelty: Does the study contribute to the advancement of science?

-Quality: Is the article written, the appropriateness of the analyses, the presentation of the results, and the journal policy compliant?

-Language level: Is Turkish or English used appropriately and understandably?

-Scope: Does the subject of the article fall within the scope of the journal?

-Original value: Does it make significant contributions to the literature, practitioners, and society?

-Scientific soundness: Is the study designed correctly? Are the data sufficient for analysis? Are the results of the article reproducible?

-Attractiveness: Do the results of the article attract the attention of readers? Does the article reach a wide audience?

In light of all these questions, the referees may decide on acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection of the article.