Considering that the Journal of Akdeniz University Faculty of Law aims to publish original and significant articles, we ask reviewers to assist in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Below are details about the article review process, how to become a reviewer, and recommendations for writing an effective review. Additionally, our reviewer terms and conditions—based on COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) principles—are provided to ensure objective and constructive peer review.

The Journal of Akdeniz University Faculty of Law employs a double-blind peer review model.

Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected from experts who hold a Ph.D. degree in the relevant field of study and have published works in that field. Information about experts affiliated with Turkish universities is accessed via the YÖK Academic website, and information about international experts is accessed through Publons.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any potential personal bias and take it into account when evaluating a manuscript. They should clearly and logically explain the reasons supporting their recommendations.
- Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and provides authors with an opportunity to improve their work. Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a manuscript or cannot complete the review promptly should decline the invitation.
- Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not discuss manuscripts or share information with anyone, nor should they contact authors directly. Information obtained through peer review must not be used for the reviewer’s own research without the author’s explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must remain confidential and not be used for personal advantage.
- Sensitivity to Research and Publication Ethics Violations: Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must not agree to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from relationships with the authors or their institutions.
- Citation Requests: If a reviewer suggests that the author cite the reviewer’s (or their collaborators’) work, it should be for genuine scientific reasons—not to increase the reviewer’s citation count or visibility. (See also Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers.)

Review Questions
Reviews should be objective and constructive. During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following points:
- Is the title appropriate for the content of the study?
- Does the abstract accurately reflect the content?
- Is the language of the manuscript clear and understandable?
- Is the scientific terminology used adequately and correctly?
- Is the structure of the paper (sections, main and subheadings) properly organized?
- Are scientific writing and citation standards followed appropriately?
- Is the topic sufficiently discussed and explained?
- Does the study include adequate scientific discussion on the subject?
- Does the study make an original contribution to its field?
- Are the sources used sufficient in both quality and quantity?
- Have you indicated your corrections or suggestions directly on the manuscript file?