PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES

Peer Review Procedures

Scientific peer review or the peer review system for research is a cornerstone of the publishing process; it elevates the quality of the research published by the journal. The aim of scientific peer review is to select valid research that has scientific quality.

As a journal with double-blind scientific peer review, guaranteeing confidentiality, we rely on the reviewers' expert comments to ensure the quality of published research. Reviewers’ comments and recommendations are sent to authors to ensure the highest standards of quality in research and publishing.

Initial Evaluation
All new articles are examined to ensure completeness and adherence to the authors’ guidelines. Those that pass the initial evaluation are then assessed by the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board to consider sending them for peer review. Authors of rejected articles at the initial evaluation stage are usually notified within one month of receipt.

Peer Review Stage
According to our policy, each manuscript is reviewed by two independent reviewers.

Reviewers may accept the research without modification, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, or reject the research.

Reviewers are selected by the editorial board, and their names are not disclosed to authors. Reviewer information is also kept confidential to ensure the integrity of the review process and to provide objective, critical, transparent, and fair reviews.

Reviewers are asked to provide anonymous comments to authors and may also submit confidential comments to the editor. In case of contradictory opinions or delayed reports, a third reviewer is requested. The double-blind review process usually takes about two months, depending on reviewer availability.

Review decisions require authors to revise and update their research based on reviewers' comments. Authors are given approximately one to two weeks to make the required revisions. In the case of major revisions, a longer period may be granted, up to about one to one and a half months. The Editor-in-Chief and the journal’s advisory board retain the final recommendation regarding acceptance or rejection based on reviewers' recommendations and opinions. The author is notified of the final decision within two to six months maximum from the submission date.

Role of Reviewers
Reviewing articles is a time-consuming responsibility, so the editorial board, authors, and readers of the international law journal appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. The journal is committed to a fast, confidential, and fair double-blind review, therefore objective and accurate feedback is requested, and adherence to the limited review period of ten days to two weeks is required. Maintaining the journal’s status as a scientific publication of high-quality articles depends on objective and fair peer review.

Selection of Reviewers
Selecting reviewers is critical in the publishing process. Selection is based on various criteria, including expertise, reputation, recommendations of the reviewer’s experience, and prior knowledge of the reviewer’s personality.

Reviewers are expected to comment on the quality of the research, analyze the results and evaluate their validity, as well as assess the importance of the work for the field of specialization.

Submitting Review Reports via OJS
The publisher uses the Open Journal Systems (OJS) electronic peer review and editing system, which provides free online training materials on how to become a reviewer.

Reviewers must first download the review form available on their dashboard, fill it out based on their reading of the article, and then upload the form along with any additional files such as the article file with tracked changes or comments.

The review report must include detailed notes on the following four points:

• Scientific Quality: research quality and depth, originality, including new and creative ideas, and soundness of the argument.

• Literary Quality: writing style, organization of ideas, including paragraph organization, clarity, and ease of narration.

• Use of References: includes not overusing or underusing references, the recency and diversity of sources, and relevance of references to the text.

• Benefit to the development of the specialty and readership.

Speed of Review:
If a reviewer feels unqualified or unsuitable to review the submitted research or knows they cannot review it within the allotted time, they must notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review.

Confidentiality:
Research under review is confidential and must be treated as such. It contains unpublished information and ideas and should not be disclosed or discussed with others without the editor’s permission. The research or its content must not be shared with others or used for personal gain.

Objectivity:
Reviewers must conduct the review objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and provide supporting arguments.

Citation of Sources:
Reviewers should identify relevant published works not cited by the author(s). Any previously published idea or argument must be accompanied by appropriate citation. Reviewers should also alert the editor to any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other paper they personally know.

Conflict of Interest and Right to Decline:
Reviewers are expected to decline reviewing research if they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive or collaborative relationships or other relevant situations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved. Reviewers who feel unable to be objective should refuse the review invitation.

Dealing with Ethical Issues During Review:
Sometimes ethical violations may be detected during the review. Reviewers may recognize most or all of the research as having been published by the same author before. Alternatively, text or ideas may have been copied without permission or proper citation from other authors.

If duplicate publication or plagiarism is suspected, reviewers should obtain a copy of the original work and compare carefully to confirm their suspicions. They should then contact the journal confidentially to discuss the issue. The publisher follows the COPE Code of Conduct and its plan to resolve suspected misconduct.