Reviewer Guideline

Referee Guidelines

Given that CografyIQ Academic Research Journal aims to publish original and important articles, we ask for referees to help us evaluate the article submissions we receive.

The article review process, how to become a referee, and advice on how to write a good review are provided below. Our referee terms and conditions, based on the COPE Principles, also provide more information on how to conduct objective and constructive refereeing.

CografyIQ Academic Research Journal adopts a double-blind peer review model.

Referee Selection
Referees are selected from experts who have a PhD and publications in the relevant field of science. Information on experts working at Turkish universities is available on the YÖK Academic website, and information on experts abroad is available on Publons.

Referee Duties and Responsibilities
1) Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively. Referees must be aware of any personal biases they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. The referee should clearly state their evaluations supporting their 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 article. In this respect, a referee who feels inadequate to review an article or who thinks that he/she will not be able to complete the review in a short time should not accept the invitation to review.

3) Confidentiality: All articles received by the journal for review should be kept confidential. Referees should not share their reviews or information about the article with anyone or contact the authors directly. Information contained in the study should not be used by a referee 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 Violations of Research and Publication Ethics: Referees should be alert to potential ethical issues in the article and report them to the editor.

5) Conflict of Interest: Referees should not accept to review an article with potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with the authors or the institutions to which the articles are affiliated.
6) Request for Citations to the Reviewer: If a reviewer suggests that an author include references to the reviewer’s (or their collaborators’) work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons, not to increase the referee’s citation count or visibility of their work. See also Ethical Rules for Reviewers

Reviewing
Reviewers’ evaluations should be objective. During the review process, reviewers are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following:

• Does the article contain new and important information?

• Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article?

• Is the methodology comprehensive and clearly described?

• Are the interpretations and conclusions substantiated by the findings?

• Are sufficient references to other studies in the field provided?

• Is the quality of the language adequate?

• Do the abstracts accurately reflect the content of the article?