Reviewer Guideline

To evaluate an article sent from the system, follow the steps below:

  • Login with your ID and password.

  • Enter the Journal Panel of the Journal of Mathematical Epidemiology from the My Journals section.

  • Log in to the reviewer panel.

  • Click the title of the article that be appointed for peer review by you from the new invitation section.

  • Acceptance or denial of the peer review will ask you on the page that will pop up. For the acceptance of peer review, please click “Accept the Review” in the green section.

  • You will see the full article in the “Documents” after accepting the review.

  • After reviewing the article, please fill out the review form in the “Reviews” section. Upload the review file if there is one.

  • Lastly, click the button “Send the Review” that spotting the right side of the page.

Peer Reviewing Processes

  • In the Journal of Mathematical Epidemiology, the referees are selected from among the experts on the subjects covered in the articles. All selected referees are informed about the responsibilities of the referees and the ethical principles, article evaluation criteria, and procedure of the Fundamental Journal of Mathematics and Applications.

  • Reviewers must take into account after accepting peer-reviewing on the system “Responsibilities of the reviewer and ethical principles to be followed” and “Reviewing Processes”.

  • Reviewers should only accept reviewing of articles for which they have the necessary expertise to perform an appropriate review, respect the confidentiality of blind peer review, and keep the details of the article confidential at all times.

  • Reviewers invited for article review are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the review within 7 days. The reviewer who does not make a decision at the end of this period is deemed to have rejected the review, and the editor appoints a new reviewer. The reviewers who accept the review are expected to express their opinions within 30 days from the date of invitation acceptance. An additional period of up to 7 days is given to the referee who does not complete the review process within this period if the reviewer requests. If the referee does not request additional time, a new referee can be appointed.

  • Each reviewer who accepts the invitation to review is asked to fill in a review form and declare the acceptance or rejection opinions about the article by providing concrete reasons.

In the Review form, the referees are expected to answer the following questions:

  • Does the Title of the manuscript reflect the contents?

  • Is the quality of language (grammar, spelling, punctuation, and English structure) sufficient to easily understand the manuscript?

  • Does the Abstract read well and reflect the contents of the manuscript?

  • Are the AMS Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC) numbers consistent with the title of the manuscript?

  • Is the Literature Review relevant, adequate, and up to date?

  • Is the Analysis comprehensive and mathematically correct?

  • Is the Conclusion section adequate?

  • Are the References complete (year, volume, number, pages)?

  • Are the Tables and Figures in the right locations?

  • Is the manuscript well organized?

  • Is the manuscript interesting and contains sufficiently novel ideas to warrant publication?

The reviewers give an opinion on all of these issues by choosing one of the options Yes, No, or Need Revision. The referees do not need to approve all of these issues in order for the article to be published. However, in the review form, the suggestions regarding the parts given as “No” and “Need Revision”, and other suggestions to the author should be stated in the "Note to the Author" section.

After completing this form, the referees can make the following decisions:

  • Revise Manuscript (Major Revision)

  • Revise Manuscript (Minor Revision)

  • Reject

  • Accept

Significant Notes:

  • If one of the peer review reports is positive and the other is negative, the article is sent to a third reviewer.

  • A single peer review report is sufficient for the rejection of a manuscript, but at least two peer review reports are required for its acceptance.

  • If one of the peer reviews reports "Accept" or "Minor Revision" and the other "Major Revision" and the editor's opinion favors the acceptance of the article, the manuscript is sent to the same reviewer after the author makes the corrections. According to the opinion of the referee who has a "Major Revision" report, the article can be rejected, accepted, or sent to a new referee.

  • The reviewer requesting revision may request to re-evaluate the article after revision. An additional 15 days are given to the reviewer for this evaluation.

  • Reviewers can contact the editor via email for further guidance or to report any suspected violations. The correspondence here is not seen by the authors.

  • The data of the articles based on field research or data analysis can be requested from the editor by the referee for a healthy review of the analyses in the article. The editor of the journal communicates with the author in this regard and transmits the data to the reviewer.

  • Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors, and/or research funders. When a conflict of interest is foreseen, the referee should contact the editorial board and indicate a possible conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into account in any conflicts of interest that may arise, (https://publicationethics.org/case/conflict-interest).

  • Reviewers cannot make use of the data of the articles they have reviewed before they are published or share this data with others.

  • The names of the reviewers who make evaluations in the journal are not disclosed/published.