All manuscripts submitted to the İstanbul 29 Mayıs University Law Review are subject to a strictly confidential double-blind peer review process. The identities of reviewers are kept anonymous and are known only to the editors. Submissions are evaluated impartially, regardless of the author’s race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, political orientation, age, or reputation.

Reviewers are selected from among experts in the specific subject areas of the manuscripts. Each reviewer is asked to complete a review form and, where necessary, prepare an additional report. Individuals who have a conflict of interest with the article’s subject matter (for instance, those who have collaborated with any of the authors, contributed to the work, or are unable to provide an objective evaluation—such as employees or competitors of the institution under review, or those with strong political or ideological positions) are not eligible to review the paper. Authors are required to notify the Editorial Board of any potential conflicts of interest prior to the peer review process.

Reviewers are expected to conduct their assessments in a professional, honest, careful, and constructive manner.

Essential Criteria for a High-Quality Review

Methodological Evaluation: Reviewers should first assess the methodological soundness of the study.

Strengths and Weaknesses: Regardless of the study’s conclusions or results, reviewers should identify its strong and weak aspects as a written scholarly work.

Ethical and Scholarly Standards: Reviewers should state whether the study raises ethical concerns or falls below accepted academic standards.

Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are expected to offer practical and constructive suggestions to help authors improve their work.

Editorial Guidance: The review should provide the editor with sufficient insight and reasoning to make an informed decision regarding acceptance or revision.

Citation Integrity: Reviewers are encouraged to identify uncited works and to ensure appropriate attribution for referenced ideas.

No Direct Contact: Reviewers must not contact the authors directly. Although two experts’ opinions are typically sought, the editor’s decision may differ from those opinions. Even partial communication between a reviewer and author may lead to misconceptions about the review process.

Invited reviewers are expected to accept or decline the review invitation within 7 days. If no response is received within this period, the invitation is considered declined, and a new reviewer is assigned by the field editor. Reviewers who accept the invitation are expected to submit their reports within 15 days from the date of acceptance. Upon request, a 7-day extension may be granted. If the reviewer does not request an extension, a replacement reviewer is appointed.

Confidentiality

All information and ideas obtained during the review process must be treated as strictly confidential and may not be used for personal advantage or shared with others. Reviewers may not discuss or share the manuscript with colleagues without the editor’s written permission.

Neither reviewers nor editors may use data, interpretations, or findings from a manuscript prior to publication for professional or personal benefit, nor may they write commentaries or derivative works related to it (unless directly relevant to the review itself).

Any conflicts of interest or competing loyalties must be disclosed to the Editorial Board. Reviewers who are unable to complete the review or foresee delays should promptly inform the relevant editor.

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, providing clear, unbiased, and constructive feedback while avoiding personal criticism of the authors. Comments should be expressed clearly and supported with reasoning to ensure authors can fully understand and respond to the reviewers’ evaluations.

Reviewer Instructions (via DergiPark System)

Log in to your DergiPark account using your username and password.

From your journal list, select “İstanbul 29 Mayıs University Law Review.”

Open the “New Invitation” tab in the Reviewer Panel to access the assigned manuscript (alternatively, use the direct link provided in the email invitation).

Accept the review invitation.

Click the “Show” button next to the relevant manuscript to access its details.

Under the “Files” tab, locate the article under “Manuscript Files” and click the download icon to save it to your computer.

Record your review notes directly on the manuscript. To do so, activate Track Changes in Word under the Review tab. Use New Comment or right-click and add comments as needed.

Upon completing your review, rename the file as “Reviewer Report.” Then remove all author-identifying information from the file (via File → Info → Check for Issues → Inspect Document → Remove All Personal Information).

Upload the completed review file using “Add New File” under the “Files” tab.

Fill out the “Manuscript/Reviewer Evaluation Form” under the “Evaluation” tab and click “Submit Review.” Ensure that the message “Your submission was successful” appears at the top of the page. If not, verify that all required fields have been completed and resubmit.

Recommendation options in the form:

Major Revision: “I wish to see the revised version of the manuscript before making a final recommendation.”

Minor Revision: “I suggest minor corrections but do not need to review the revised version.”

Accept: “The article can be published in its current form without revision.”

If Major Revision is selected, the reviewer will be reassigned to the manuscript after resubmission, and the same review process will be repeated.