Reviewer reports are expected to include clear and reasoned evaluations regarding the scientific quality of the manuscript.
The purpose of the peer review process is not only to provide a recommendation but also to offer feedback that may improve the academic quality of the manuscript.
Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluation within two weeks from the date they accept the review invitation.
If the reviewer anticipates that the review cannot be completed within this period, they are kindly requested to inform the editorial office.
The Journal of Academic Value Studies (JAVStudies) applies a double-blind peer review system.
Within this system:
• The identities of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers.
• The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to authors.
Manuscripts sent to reviewers are anonymized. Reviewers are expected to evaluate submissions solely on the basis of their scientific quality, methodology, academic contribution, and writing clarity.
Reviewers are expected to base their evaluations entirely on scholarly criteria.
In this context, assessments should consider:
• clarity of the research objective and research question
• adequacy and relevance of the literature review
• appropriateness and rigor of the methodology
• consistency of analysis and findings
• contribution of the study to the relevant academic field
Review reports should be written in a professional, respectful, and constructive tone. Personal remarks or statements targeting the authors are not compatible with the ethics of scholarly peer review.
Despite the double-blind review system, in some cases reviewers may recognize the author or the research group from the manuscript.
The following situations may constitute a conflict of interest:
• recent or ongoing academic collaboration with the author
• employment at the same institution
• shared projects, consultancy, or financial relationships
• personal or professional relationships that may affect impartial evaluation
In such cases, the reviewer is expected to inform the editorial office and withdraw from the review process.
Manuscripts sent for review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not:
• share the manuscript with third parties
• discuss its content outside the review process
• use unpublished data or findings in their own research
All information obtained during the review process must be kept confidential.
Although plagiarism screening is primarily conducted by the editorial office, reviewers are encouraged to notify the editor if they detect or suspect:
• plagiarism or excessive similarity
• duplicate publication
• data fabrication or manipulation
• unethical research practices
• AI-generated and non-existent references
• inappropriate or manipulative citation behavior
Reviewer reports should be prepared based on the reviewer’s own academic evaluation.
Artificial intelligence tools may be used as supportive tools for language editing or improving clarity, but review reports should not be generated entirely by artificial intelligence.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, and scholarly integrity of their evaluations.
Reviewers are expected to indicate one of the following recommendations:
• Accept
• Minor Revision (no need to see the revised version)
• Minor/Major Revision (I would like to see the revised version)
• Reject
If two reviewers recommend acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the publication stage.
If one reviewer recommends acceptance and the other recommends rejection, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer, and the final decision is made based on the third evaluation.
Manuscripts receiving two rejection recommendations are not published.
The editor may also reject a manuscript without seeking a second review if the justification in a rejection report is considered sufficiently strong.
Reviews in which the reviewer marks all evaluation criteria as “sufficient” and recommends direct acceptance without providing any comments, critique, corrections, or suggestions will not be taken into consideration in the editorial decision process. In such cases, the editor may request a revised evaluation from the reviewer or assign the manuscript to another reviewer.
Peer review is a fundamental component of academic publishing and plays a vital role in maintaining the reliability and quality of scientific knowledge.
Serving as a reviewer provides scholars with opportunities to:
• examine current research in their field at an early stage
• gain experience in scholarly evaluation
• contribute to the improvement of academic publication quality
In recognition of this contribution, researchers who complete four reviews for JAVStudies are granted one free publication right in the journal.
The editorial board sincerely thanks all reviewers who dedicate their valuable time and expertise to evaluating manuscripts and contributing to the advancement of the scientific literature.