Notes For Reviewers

Notes for Reviewers

About the Journal
Orun is an international, peer-reviewed journal published annually since 2025 by the KAFADEMİ Scientific Research and Development Cooperative.
The journal is managed by an independent editorial board.

Publication Principles
While the primary focus of Orun is lexicography, the journal also welcomes scholarly contributions from all fields of linguistics (etymology, semantics, morphology, etc.) that are relevant to lexicography. Additionally, it includes book reviews and evaluations, research notes, interviews, translations, and text editions.

Evaluation and Publication Process of Submitted Manuscripts

Editorial Review
All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the editor to determine their alignment with the journal’s aims, subject matter, content, presentation style, and adherence to writing guidelines.
Only those that meet the preliminary editorial criteria are forwarded to peer reviewers.
Where necessary, the editor may consult expert opinions before the peer review stage and base decisions on these evaluations.

Peer Review Process
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field and affiliated with institutions other than the authors’. A double-blind peer review system is strictly applied.
If there is a significant divergence in reviewer opinions, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer.
Reviewers are expected to provide detailed, clear, and scientifically grounded feedback—whether within the ScholarOne Manuscript system form or in additional commentary.

Transparency

All communication between authors and editors is conducted transparently. However, correspondence between editors and reviewers is confidential and not shared with authors. Reviewers remain anonymous in all feedback sent to authors.
If a reviewer identifies ethical issues, data integrity concerns, or potential academic conflicts of interest, they must notify the editor.
To ensure a holistic and coherent review process and to provide more academically constructive feedback, the editor may ask reviewers to respond to one another’s reports. Reviewers’ identities remain confidential in this process as well.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewer selection is based on multiple factors, including subject-matter expertise, prior reviewing experience, institutional independence from the author(s), and the editor’s familiarity with the reviewer’s past performance.
Authors may request that specific individuals not be selected as reviewers due to conflicts of interest.
The reviewer database is periodically reviewed and updated by the editorial team.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Upon receiving an invitation, the reviewer should:

Confirm access to the ScholarOne Manuscript system via the provided email link.
Accept or decline the invitation based on their availability and expertise.
Declare any conflicts of interest (e.g., prior collaboration, institutional ties, funding conflicts) that may compromise objectivity.
Carefully read the Editor Letter, as it may contain specific instructions (e.g., only evaluating the methodology section).
If assistance was sought during the evaluation, the reviewer must disclose the name of the individual to the editor. The journal considers listing such individuals as co-reviewers to be an ethical practice.

Writing the Review Report

Reviewers should focus on the following key questions:

Does the manuscript offer an original contribution to the field?
Is the research up-to-date and scientifically relevant?

Review reports must be critical yet impartial.
Reviewers are expected to:

Focus solely on the manuscript and avoid personal remarks about the author(s).
Provide more than just ratings on the form—especially in negative evaluations, they must explain their reasoning and highlight the manuscript’s weaknesses.
Suggest specific improvements if revisions are recommended.
Avoid inappropriate, dismissive, or demeaning language, as well as factual inaccuracies. The editor may intervene and revise such parts of the report.

Timeframe

Reviewers are given 30 days to complete evaluations.
If a reviewer cannot complete the review within this period, they may request an extension or notify the editor of their unavailability to avoid delays for the author and allow timely reassignment.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors may request that specific individuals not be selected as reviewers. Additionally, editors do not assignmanuscripts to reviewers who:

Have previously co-authored with the author(s),
Have participated in pre-publication feedback on the manuscript,
Have known disputes with the author(s),
Stand to gain financially from the publication,
Work in the same department or institution as the author(s).

Since editors may not be aware of all such conflicts, reviewers are expected to disclose any circumstances that could compromise their impartiality.

Publication Policy and Ethics

Despite the editor’s efforts, some ethical issues may go unnoticed. It is crucial that domain-expert reviewers report any such concerns to the editor immediately.

Reviewer Feedback and Follow-up

If a manuscript is accepted for publication, its final version is sent only to those reviewers who request to see it again.
If a reviewer feels that their suggestions were not adequately addressed in the published version, they may request to view the other reviewers’ reports. Editors may share these reports in response.

Editorial decisions based on review reports. The editor may:

Accept the manuscript with minor or substantial revisions,
Request a revision based on reviewer feedback and initiate a new round of review,
Or reject the manuscript.

Reviewers may give firm recommendations regarding publication; however, final decisions rest with the editor, who considers the strength of arguments rather than the number of positive or negative reviews.
Substantive, well-reasoned reports are prioritized over those offering only brief or binary evaluations (e.g., yes/no answers).