Peer Review Policy
SAER Journal · Editorial Policies
SAER Journal evaluates the scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the Journal's aims and scope of submitted manuscripts through independent peer review.
The peer-review process is conducted under a double-anonymous review model and in accordance with the principles of impartiality, confidentiality, research integrity, and editorial independence. Manuscripts proceeding to peer review are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within 5 days; where necessary, the review period may be extended by the editorial team.
Policy No. SAER-POL-PR-01 · Version 1.1 · Effective 2026 · Last Updated 24 September 2026 · Responsible Body SAER Journal Editorial Board
1. Initial Editorial Assessment
Submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editor or an assigned field editor with regard to the Journal's aims and scope, scholarly quality, formal requirements, ethical requirements, and fundamental publishing standards. Manuscripts that fall outside the Journal's scope, fail to meet essential scholarly or ethical requirements, or are otherwise considered unsuitable for external review may be rejected without external peer review.
2. Peer-Review Model
SAER Journal primarily applies a double-anonymous peer-review model to research and review articles. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another.
Manuscripts proceeding to peer review are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. The editor may seek additional reviewer opinions where considered necessary.
3. Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their scholarly expertise and capacity to evaluate the subject matter, methodology, and disciplinary context of the manuscript. Editors seek to avoid actual or potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the independence of the review process.
Reviewers are expected to disclose any financial, institutional, academic, personal, or other conflict of interest that could affect their evaluation and, where appropriate, to decline or withdraw from the review.
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts particularly with regard to:
- Originality and scholarly contribution,
- Clarity of the research question or objective,
- Adequacy of the theoretical and conceptual framework,
- Appropriateness and scientific rigor of the methodology,
- Accuracy and clarity of the presentation of findings,
- Consistency of the discussion and conclusions with the findings,
- Adequacy and currency of the references,
- Compliance with ethical principles and research integrity standards.
5. Reviewer Recommendations
Following evaluation, reviewers submit their comments and recommendations to the editor. Reviewer reports constitute an important source of scholarly advice in the editorial decision-making process; however, reviewer recommendations are not binding on the editor.
The final decision on a manuscript is made by the editor, taking into account reviewer reports, editorial assessment, the Journal's aims and scope, scholarly quality, and publication ethics.
6. Reviewer Support and Editorial Independence
In recognition of the time and scholarly expertise contributed to the peer-review process, SAER Journal provides reviewers appointed by the Journal with reviewer support of TRY 1,250 for each completed review deemed editorially satisfactory. This support is provided by SAER Journal, and authors are not charged any separate fee for peer review.
Eligibility for reviewer support is independent of whether the reviewer recommends acceptance, revision, or rejection. Reviewer support is based on completion of the report and its adequacy as a scholarly evaluation rather than on the outcome or direction of the recommendation.
Reviewer support may not be used to influence the reviewer's independent scholarly assessment or the editor's final decision. Reviewer recommendations remain advisory, and the final publication decision is made by the editor within the Journal's editorial procedures.
7. Divergent Reviewer Opinions
Where substantial disagreement exists between reviewer reports, the editor may refer the manuscript to a third or additional reviewer. Obtaining an additional review does not alter the editor's authority to make the final decision.
8. Revision Process
When revision is requested, authors are expected to provide clear and systematic responses to reviewer and editorial comments. The editor may return the revised manuscript to the same or different reviewers or assess the adequacy of the revisions editorially.
9. Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts and associated reviewer reports are treated as confidential scholarly communications. Editors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in the publication process must not disclose manuscript content to unauthorized persons before publication or use information obtained during evaluation for personal or scholarly advantage.
Reviewers are expected not to upload unpublished manuscripts, supplementary files, or other confidential materials to artificial intelligence systems or third-party digital tools where confidentiality cannot be assured. Any use of AI-assisted tools during peer review must not compromise confidentiality or data-security principles.
10. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members
Where an editor, Editorial Board member, or another individual involved in the Journal's decision-making processes is an author of a manuscript, that individual is excluded from the evaluation and decision-making process. The manuscript is handled by an independent editor and independent reviewers.
11. Ethical Concerns
If concerns regarding plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, failure to comply with ethics approval requirements, inappropriate authorship, or other matters of research integrity arise during peer review, the editor may initiate an appropriate investigation and apply the relevant publication-ethics procedures.
12. Core Principles
SAER Journal conducts peer review in accordance with internationally recognized principles of transparency, confidentiality, impartiality, and research integrity in scholarly publishing. The Journal's peer-review practices may be reviewed and updated in response to developments in international publication ethics and editorial standards.
