Referee and editor's guide

Referee guide

Considering that EUCHEMBIOJ aims to publish original and important articles, we ask referees to assist in evaluating the article submissions we receive. Below is the article review process, how to become a reviewer, and advice on how to write a good review. We also have arbitration terms and conditions based on the COPE Principles, which provide further information on how to conduct an objective and constructive arbitration.

EUCHEMBIOJ has adopted the double-blind arbitration model.

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

Duties and responsibilities of referees
1) Objectivity: Reviews should be made objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias that may exist and take this into account when reviewing a manuscript. The referee must clearly express his/her evaluations supporting 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 article. In this respect, a referee who feels inadequate to review an article or who thinks that s/he will not be able to complete the review in a short time should not accept the referee invitation.
3) Confidentiality: All articles that reach the journal for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or contact the authors directly. The information contained in the study should not be used by a reviewer in his or her own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
4) Sensitivity to Research and Publication Ethics Violations: Referees should be careful about possible ethical issues in the article and report them to the editor.
5) Conflict of Interest: Referees should not agree to review an article with possible conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with the authors or the institutions to which the articles are affiliated.
6) Request for Citation to the Reviewer: If a reviewer recommends that an author include references to the reviewer's (or their collaborators') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons, not for the purpose of increasing the reviewer's citation count or increasing the visibility of their work. See also Code of Ethics for Referees.

The referees' evaluations must be objective. During the peer review process, referees are expected to make their evaluations by taking the following points into consideration.

  • Does the article contain new and important information?
  • Does the abstract clearly and neatly describe the content of the article?
  • Is the method described in a complete and understandable manner?
  • Are the comments made and conclusions proven by the findings?
  • Are sufficient references given to other studies in the field?
  • Is the language quality sufficient?
  • Do Abstract/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

Editor's Guide

Editors' selection
Editors are selected among experts who have a doctoral degree and have published publications in accordance with the publication scope of the journal.

Editors' responsibilities
Coordinating the Peer review process
The editor must ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial and timely. Research articles should be reviewed by at least two external referees, and the editor should seek additional opinions when necessary.

Selection of reviewers
Editor; will select reviewer 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.

Privacy protection
The editor must maintain the confidentiality of all materials submitted to the journal and all communications with referees, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. In exceptional cases 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 article should not be used in the editor's own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained during the arbitration process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal benefit.

Editors must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Investigation of allegations
An editor who finds compelling evidence of an ethical violation should contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to arrange for the article to be corrected, retracted, or other correction made.

Conflict of interest
The editor should not be involved in decisions regarding articles written by himself/herself or his/her family members. Additionally, such work must be subject to all the journal's usual procedures. The editor must follow ICMJE guidelines regarding 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 articles sent 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 journal's ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. The editor will not request references to articles from his/her own journal or another journal, except for scientific reasons.

Correction, retraction, expression of concern
Editors may consider publishing corrections if minor errors are identified in the published article that do not affect the findings, interpretations, or conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the manuscript in the case of major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. If there is potential for misuse of research or publication by authors, if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and the authors' institutions have not investigated the incident, or if the potential investigation appears unfair or inconclusive, editors should consider issuing an expression of concern. COPE and ICJME guidelines regarding corrections, retractions or expressions of concern are taken into account.