Reviewer Guideline

Epigraf: Reviewer Guidelines

Epigraf: Journal of Art, Language, and Culture Studies believes that the peer review process plays a crucial role in enhancing the scientific quality of published works and maintaining academic ethical standards. This guide outlines the responsibilities of reviewers and key points to consider during the review process.

Overview of the Review Process

Epigraph employs a double-blind peer review process. In this system, the identities of both reviewers and authors are kept confidential. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts independently and impartially.

The review process consists of the following steps:

  1. Reviewer Invitation: Editors invite reviewers to evaluate a manuscript.
  2. Acceptance of the Review: Reviewers accept the invitation and complete the evaluation within the specified time.
  3. Reviewer Report: Reviewers submit their comments and recommendations in written form.
  4. Outcome: Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor makes a decision regarding acceptance, rejection, or revision of the manuscript.

Reviewer Responsibilities

1. Impartiality

  • Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based solely on their scientific merit, without considering authors' identity, gender, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, or institutional affiliation.
  • If a conflict of interest exists (e.g., a personal or professional relationship with the authors), the reviewer must decline the invitation.

2. Confidentiality

  • Reviewers must treat all materials and information obtained during the review process as confidential.
  • Reviewers may not use any part of the manuscript for personal gain or share it with others.

3. Scientific Evaluation

  • Reviewers should carefully assess the manuscript's originality, academic contribution, methodology, findings, and conclusions.
  • Constructive and clear language should be used, avoiding personal criticism or biased remarks.

4. Timeliness

  • Reviewers must complete their evaluations within the given timeframe. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline, they should promptly inform the editor.

5. Recommendations and Feedback

  • Reviewers are expected to provide constructive suggestions to help authors improve their work.
  • Feedback should be professional and respectful, avoiding comments that could discourage the authors.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  1. Originality: Does the manuscript provide new and important contributions to the field?
  2. Scientific Rigor: Is the research methodology appropriate and effectively applied?
  3. Academic Contribution: Does the study offer meaningful insights into art, language, or culture studies?
  4. Structure: Are the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, methods, findings, discussion, and conclusion sections coherent and sufficient?
  5. Language and Expression: Is the manuscript written in clear, professional, and grammatically correct language?
  6. References: Are the sources cited appropriately, sufficiently, and accurately?

Preparing the Review Report

The review report should include the following sections:

  1. General Assessment: A brief overview of the manuscript's overall quality.
  2. Strengths: Highlight the manuscript's academic contributions, innovative aspects, or strong points.
  3. Weaknesses and Suggestions for Improvement: Identify any weaknesses or issues and provide clear suggestions for revisions.
  4. Conclusion: Provide a final recommendation (accept, revise, or reject).

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must promptly inform the editor if they identify any conflict of interest that could influence their evaluation. Conflicts of interest may include:

  • Working at the same institution as the author(s).
  • Having direct commercial interests related to the manuscript topic.
  • Previous collaborations with the author(s).

If such situations arise, reviewers should decline the review invitation.

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

Epigraf acknowledges the valuable contributions of reviewers and deeply appreciates their support of the academic community. Reviewers' names may be published annually in a general list (without revealing which articles they reviewed).

For questions or suggestions regarding the review process, please contact the journal editors:
Email: editor@epigrafdergi.com
Phone: