Reviewer Guideline

Editorial Board Members

1. Determines policies in line with author and referee reports in the process of determining and developing the publication principles of the journal.

2. If necessary, it checks whether the studies submitted to the journal comply with ethical standards and intellectual and industrial rights.

3. It develops a policy to act in accordance with the principle of free thought for the impartial evaluation of the studies.

4. In case of disagreement between the referees, the editor sends the article to a third referee for evaluation. If deemed necessary by the editor-in-chief, the study is submitted to the field editor for evaluation. In this case, the field editor reviews the study and expresses his/her opinion.

5. In order for the journal to gain an international identity and standard, it makes attempts to include academicians from different countries in the refereeing process.

6. They develop policies for the journal to be included in national and international indexes and present policies to the editor-in-chief of the journal in this direction.

7. They follow the researches on refereeing and publishing, and review the development processes of the journal in the light of new information.

8. Should not demand any fee from the journal during the editorial process.

9. Editorial board members are deemed to have accepted the publication principles of the journal.

Reviewer Guide

Heterotopic View magazine carries out the evaluation process with the "double-blind peer review" system. All studies uploaded to the journal system are pre-examined by the editor in terms of form and content. At this stage, it is checked whether the study is suitable for the purpose, scope, and publication policy of the journal. When the study is not found suitable for the journal, it can be rejected by sending it to the author, or it is sent back to the author for necessary corrections. Studies approved by the editors are sent to at least two referees to evaluate the scientific quality of the article.

Referees can make the following decisions regarding the article:

* "Accept"

* "Minor revision

* "Major revision"

* Reject" (It is not recommended for publishing)

If the referees decide that the article is not suitable for publication, the editor notifies the author of this decision. In case of disagreement among the referees, the editor sends the article to a third referee for evaluation. The article, which has a total of two votes of approval from two referees, enters the typesetting process. The work that receives a revision from one referee and an acceptance vote from the other referee enters the revision process. The author should make the corrections in his work in the time given to him. If the arrangements made by the authors are not deemed sufficient, the editorial board may reject the study.

The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the work. The editor's decision is certain. The editor cannot intervene in the decisions about the article he wrote.

The result of the study deemed suitable for publication is announced to the author and she/he is informed in which number the work will be published.

Responsibilities of the Reviewers

He/ she should not direct his/her personal criticisms of the work he/she is examining. In this sense, the language used in referee reports should not contain subjective judgments about the author's personality.

He/she should be careful not to accept the refereeing of studies that are outside his/her area of expertise.

It should not share any information about the work with third parties during and after the review.

The deficient and faulty aspects of the studies that were found unsuitable ("Rejected") as a result of the examination should be explained concretely.

They should evaluate the articles within the time allotted to them.