Peer Review Policies

The International Journal of Sexual Science upholds a rigorous double-blind peer review process to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity and quality. This process ensures that all manuscripts are evaluated impartially, with both authors and reviewers remaining anonymous to each other throughout the review. It is the responsibility of reviewers to provide contributions that will assist the editors in making decisions regarding the publication of manuscripts. In doing so, reviewers are expected to adhere to the policies set forth by the journal.

Manuscripts submitted by contributors who are members of the Editorial Board or Publication Board will be evaluated by independent external experts. The same rules apply to these submissions as to all others. The Editor or Section Editor ensures transparency, impartiality, and the avoidance of bias in the double-blind peer review process.

All published manuscripts will include the submission date, acceptance date, and publication date within their PDF version.

The International Journal of Sexual Science does not publish reviewer reports; evaluation reports will remain anonymous to both authors and readers. The copyright of peer review evaluations belongs to the journal. The Editor is obligated to share reviewer reports with TR-DİZİN, the national index.
Peer review reports and correspondence conducted through the online evaluation system may only be shared with editors of other journals in cases of significant concerns, such as suspected research misconduct. In such cases, the identity of the reviewer will remain anonymous.

The International Journal of Sexual Science does not tolerate hostile or unprofessional language in peer reviews. If such language is detected, the Editor may warn the reviewer and request a revised evaluation. Should the reviewer decline to revise their comments, the Editor reserves the right to edit the review (removing inappropriate language, tone, or personal remarks). The edited version will be retained in the online evaluation system.

Reviewers who fail to comply with the journal’s policies may be removed from the reviewer pool. The Editor holds the final decision-making authority in all such matters.

MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION PROCESS & EDITORIAL WORKFLOW

Initial Submission Review

Upon receiving a manuscript, the editorial team conducts an initial review to ensure the submission adheres to the journal’s guidelines, academic standards, and completeness. This review also includes verifying the inclusion of author details, references, and ethical approval documentation. The editorial secretariat process will be considered as part of the evaluation of the article. The date on which the author submits the article to the online evaluation system will be deemed the date of receipt of the article.

Submissions to the journal are forwarded to the referees appointed by the Editor for evaluation after passing through the editorial secretariat process. The average time required for the editorial secretariat process for submitted articles is approximately 14 days.

Plagiarism Screening

Manuscripts are scanned using iThenticate, a software designed to detect instances of plagiarism. It should be noted that the abstract and references section of the article are not included in the similarity scan. The similarity rate of the article should not exceed 20%. In the event that an article exhibits a similarity rate in excess of 20%, the editor may request corrections from the author or, alternatively, may reject the article prior to peer review. The editor will furnish the author with a similarity report, together with a statement of the reasons for the decision reached. This process will be completed within the specified timeframe for the editorial secretariat.

Peer Review

After passing the initial submission review, the manuscript is sent to a minimum of two independent reviewers who are experts in the manuscript’s subject area. In instances where the two expert referees are unable to achieve a consensus, the Editor shall appoint a third referee (or additional referees, as necessary). These external reviewers assess the manuscript's scientific quality, originality, and relevance to the field. The double-blind system is employed to ensure impartiality, meaning that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the process.

The review process generally takes 45 days, though this timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of revisions.

Manuscripts will be accepted or rejected based on feedback from at least two reviewers, with the final decision made by the Editor.

Reviewer Selection

The Editor is responsible for selecting qualified reviewers. While authors may suggest potential reviewers, the final decision rests with the Editor to ensure diversity and an unbiased evaluation process. Care is taken to avoid conflicts of interest between the manuscript's authors and the selected reviewers. All interactions between reviewers and authors are coordinated by the Editors.

Peer Review Reports

Reviewers provide detailed feedback on various aspects of the manuscript, including the clarity of the research question, methodology, originality, and relevance. Reviewer reports are shared with the authors to allow them manuscript revisions; however, the reviewers remain anonymous. Reviewers’ information or/and reviewer comments are not published alongside the article.

The standard review period is 14 days. Reviewers may request an additional 7 days if needed. Reviewers are required to provide a reasoned decision, clearly indicating whether the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Anonymous Reviews

The identities of the reviewers are kept anonymous to the authors and vice versa. Editors may provide criticism/recommendations to the author in cases where reviewers do not provide feedback (Provided that they do not make these recommendations as an anonymous reviewer).

Feedback from Reviewers

Reviewers offer constructive comments, suggestions for revisions, and recommendations regarding publication (acceptance, revision, or rejection). Authors are given the opportunity to address the reviewers' feedback and revise their manuscript accordingly.

Revisions

If revisions are requested by the reviewer, they are communicated to the authors anonymously. When revisions are required (major or minor), authors must submit a revised manuscript that highlights the changes made in response to the reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript is then re-evaluated by the reviewers. This iterative process continues until the manuscript meets the standards required for publication.

Authors are given 14 days to complete the requested revisions. If necessary, they may request an additional 7 days. Once the revisions are completed, the revised manuscript is submitted to the same reviewer for a second-round evaluation. Each review round is allocated a 14-day evaluation period.

Decision-Making

After receiving feedback from the reviewers, the Editor makes the final decision on whether the manuscript will be accepted, revised, or rejected. The decision is based on the consensus of at least two positive reviewer reports. If there is a conflict between the reviewers, a third reviewer may be consulted. The final decision is communicated to the authors, along with any feedback on the necessary revisions.

The Editor makes the final decision regarding publication after evaluating the reviewers' feedback and ensuring the manuscript meets the journal’s academic standards and ethical guidelines.

Acceptance

If the manuscript meets the journal’s standards and the reviewers’ concerns are addressed adequately, it will be accepted for publication.

Rejection

If the manuscript fails to meet academic standards or if the issues raised by the reviewers are not satisfactorily addressed, it may be rejected. The Editor has final authority in all decisions, ensuring that the journal’s ethical guidelines are followed throughout the process.

 

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The journal’s Editorial Board adheres strictly to ethical standards, addressing any issues related to plagiarism, conflicts of interest, or research misconduct. All reviewers and authors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest. Any suspected ethical violations are promptly addressed, in line with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, ensuring transparency and accountability.

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2 September 2017
https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
© 2020 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) https://publicationethics.org