Only accepted work is recordedAboutGuidesContactSign in
CitePepCitePep
Reviewers/Melik Can Sariyer
LB

Melik Can Sariyer

Verified reviewer
Policy researcher
Accepting reviews · next slot October
Request a review
Days to deliver, each review12 of 12 on time
Oldest, agreed deadlineLatest
12Reviews completedsince Feb 2026
100%Delivered on time12 of 12
~6 daysTypical turnarounddeadline 7 days
$420Fee per reviewfrozen at acceptance

What she reviews

Fields
TechnologySoftware developmentTooling impactsBenthic ecology
Methods
Field surveysMixed-effects modelsTime seriesRemote sensing
Writes reviews in English and German

Availability

Capacity: 2 reviews a month
Sep2 of 2 taken
Oct1 slot open
Nov2 slots open

What you receive from her

The same report structure every CitePep reviewer follows.

ISummaryWhat the paper claims, so you can check she understood it
IIAssessmentWhether the evidence supports the main conclusions
IIIMajorIssues a journal reviewer would likely raise, quoting your text
IVMinorSmaller fixes: methods, missing details, figures
VNotesOptional suggestions on wording and references
See the reviewer handbook →
In the community

Helping authors, without ever discussing a manuscript

Melik Can Sariyer hosts office hours and answers general questions about methods and peer review. She never mentions any paper she has reviewed or been offered.

See all activity →
6office hours hosted
74author questions answered
22marked as expert answers
540thanks from authors
Coming up, and most helpful so far
OCT9c/peer-reviewOffice hours· 16:00 CET · 1 hourResponding to major findings in ecology papersBring general questions. 23 authors are going.Remind me
52c/peer-reviewQuestion· 12 SepHow do reviewers judge site selection in field studies?I look for three things: why these sites, what was excluded and why, and whether results are shown per site. State them in the methods before anyone has to ask.Expert answerGeneral practice38c/work-skillsDiscussion· 28 AugWhat makes a “minor” finding worth fixing anyway?Minors rarely decide the outcome alone, but five of them signal carelessness. Fix the ones a referee would notice in the first read, units, labels, missing n.Expert answer
Active inc/peer-reviewOffice-hours host6 sessionsc/work-skillsMember · 31 answersauthority 88
What she will never discussAny manuscript she has reviewed, declined or been offered, even without names. Authors’ findings stay with authors.
Ask her in office hoursAuthors can post anonymously. Keep questions general.

Community activity is separate from her reviews. Helpful votes never affect her completed count, on-time rate or fee.

Working with Melik Can Sariyer

Two ways to reach her, depending on who you are

Authors ask for a private review before submitting. Journal editors can ask her to referee through their own process.

You wrote the paperRequest a pre-submission review
1Describe your paperTitle, abstract, field and language. No upload yet.
2She sees the abstract onlyShe accepts or declines within 48 hours. Declining is private.
3She reads the full paperYou upload it once she accepts. It is never shared or reused.
4You get her reportUsually in about 6 days. You can ask one follow-up question.
Request a review
You edit a journalAsk her to referee
1Send a short noteYour journal, role, and the manuscript’s field. Use your editorial email.
2We pass it onCitePep forwards your message. We don’t see or handle the manuscript.
3She replies directlyIf she’s interested, the review runs through your journal’s own system.
CitePep is not a journal and plays no part in editorial decisions. Journal referee work doesn’t appear on this profile.
How her fee works
$420Her total fee. You see it before you ask.
HeldPaid only once she accepts; kept until she delivers.
RefundedIn full if she declines, misses the deadline or doesn’t deliver.

She is paid the same whatever her review concludes. Payment terms →

Illustrative profile.
Contact Melik Can Sariyer as a journalFor journal editors seeking a referee. Pre-submission reviews are requested separately.
CitePep passes your message on; it does not referee for journals or take part in editorial decisions.