Reviewer Guide

1. General Information About the Refereeing Process

• The peer-review process of our journal is based on a double-blind peer-review system. Authors and reviewers are unaware of each other's identities.
• Experts selected as referees must provide an objective, fair, and detailed evaluation.
• Referees are required to make their decision on whether to accept or not to accept the invitation within 7 days of receiving the invitation.
• Confidentiality should be given utmost importance throughout the peer-review process. The article should only be reviewed by the referee and should not be shared with third parties.

2. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the articles in line with the following criteria:

• Scientific Contribution and Originality: What is the scientific innovation and contribution of the study? Does it offer a new knowledge or approach in the field?
• Method: Are the methods used appropriate and sufficient? Is the level of explanation of the methods sufficient for the reproducibility of the study?
• Data Analysis: Are the methods of analyzing the data appropriately? How is the accuracy of the data and the validity of the analyses?
• Results and Discussion: Are the results logical and consistent? Does the discussion section reveal the importance and limitations of the study by making comparisons with the literature?
• Writing Language and Format: Is the writing language of the article fluent? Are the technical terms used correctly? Is the article suitable for the journal format?

3. Evaluation Period

Referees are expected to evaluate and finalize the article within 15 days. If additional time is needed during this period, journal editors should be contacted.

4. Preparation of the Evaluation Report

Referees are expected to prepare their evaluation reports under the following headings:

• Introduction: An overview of the study and first impressions.
• Strengths: Highlighting the strengths of the article.
• Weaknesses and Deficiencies: Deficiencies identified in the study or areas that need improvement.
• Revision Suggestions: Suggestions for the author to improve their work. Revision proposals should be concrete and descriptive.
• Conclusion and Recommendation: At the end of the evaluation, the referee should choose one of the following options for the article:
  • It is convenient to publish.
  • It is appropriate to publish after minor revisions.
  • It should be re-evaluated after major revisions.
  • It is not appropriate to publish.

5. Compliance with the Code of Ethics

The referees must comply with the rules of scientific ethics. Attention should be paid to the following ethical situations:

• Conflict of Interest: If the referee has a personal or academic conflict with the author(s), he should notify the journal editor and refuse the refereeing task.
• Confidentiality: The content of the article and the referee report should be kept confidential. No information should be shared without the permission of the authors.

6. Communication and Feedback

Reviewers should contact the journal editors if they have questions or problems during the evaluation process. Feedback is expected to be objective, constructive and aimed at improving the author's work.

7. Acknowledgments and Appreciation

The contributions of our referees to scientific processes are of great importance in increasing the quality of our journal. Our journal would like to thank the scientists who served as referees and send a "Referee Certificate" via e-mail to thank them.