The Journal of Nationalism Studies publishes articles that have undergone peer review. Reviewers are selected from among experts who hold a doctoral degree in the relevant scientific field and have published works. The journal employs a double-blind peer review model. Reviewers are volunteer academics who assess the suitability, originality, and methodological validity of a scientific work for publication. This role forms the foundation of academic publishing and entails the following responsibilities:
1. Ethical and Confidentiality Responsibilities
- Confidentiality: To be aware that articles submitted for evaluation are confidential documents prior to publication and not to use the information contained in these articles for personal gain or share it with third parties before the article is published.
- Conflict of Interest: If the authors of the article or its subject matter have a direct or indirect conflict of interest (financial, institutional or personal), they must immediately inform the editor and decline the review assignment.
- Impartiality: Conducting the evaluation in an objective manner, focusing entirely on the scientific content, regardless of the author's identity, institution or gender.
2. Time and Quality Responsibilities
- Timely Response: Complete the review within the timeframe specified by the journal. If this is not possible, request an extension or immediately decline the assignment and notify the editor.
- Comprehensive Evaluation: Not only providing a recommendation on whether the article should be published or not, but also offering detailed and constructive criticism to support this recommendation. These criticisms should clearly indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
- Competence Limits: If the reviewer considers that the subject of the article is outside their area of expertise, they should decline the review assignment or inform the editor of this situation.
3. Evaluation of Content: Reviewers should comprehensively examine the following aspects of the article in their reports:
- Scientific Contribution: The level of original and significant scientific contribution that the work provides to the field.
- Methodology: The validity of the research methods used and the accuracy of the statistical analyses applied.
- Findings and Discussion: Whether the findings are clearly presented and whether the discussion section logically supports the results.
- Literature Review: Whether the relevant fundamental literature has been comprehensively and accurately addressed.
- Language and Clarity: Whether the grammar, spelling, and overall academic presentation quality of the article are adequate.
4. Ethical Violation Report: During the article review process, the referee:
- Evidence that the article has been published elsewhere,
- Serious suspicion of plagiarism,
- Suspicion of data falsification or manipulation,
If any suspicion or evidence of such ethical violations is detected, the author is obliged to report this immediately to the journal editor, providing concrete evidence. Such situations should be managed through the editor, not by contacting the author directly.