Section Editor/Reviewer Opinion:
- If the decision is "Publishable after corrections," the editor has the authority to return the study to the reviewer after the author has made the necessary revisions. However, the editor may also choose to forward all reports, along with their own opinion, directly to the coordinating board of directors, without consulting the reviewer again.
- If the decision is "I wish to review the text again," the editor will return the study to the Section Editor/Reviewer after the author’s revisions. Based on the reviewer's response, the editor may either request further corrections from the author or send all reports, along with their own opinion, to the coordinating board of directors.
The Section Editor/Reviewer requesting revisions may also request a re-evaluation of the study after the necessary changes have been made. The reviewer will be granted an additional 15 days to conduct this evaluation.
If the reviewer reports are negative, the editor will inform the author and the board of directors that the study will not be published, thereby ending the review process.
Note:
For studies based on field research or data analysis, the reviewer may request the raw data from the editor to ensure a thorough evaluation of the analysis. The editor will then contact the author and forward the requested data to the reviewer.
Section Editors/Reviewers must avoid any conflicts of interest related to the research, authors, or funding sources. In cases where a potential conflict of interest arises, the reviewer must inform the editor and disclose the conflict. Any conflicts of interest will be handled according to the Conflict-of-Interest Framework published by COPE.
Section Editors/Reviewers are prohibited from using or sharing the data from the studies they have reviewed prior to publication.