Reviewer and Editor Guide
Reviewer's Guide
Artuklu International Journal of Health Sciences publishes peer-reviewed research articles. It carries out this process with the support of expert researchers in the field. The journal adopts a double-blind peer review model.
Below is the article review process, how to become a reviewer, and advice on how to write a good review.
Log in with your username and password.
Log in to the Journal Panel of Artuklu International Journal of Health Sciences from the My Journals section.
Log in to the reviewer panel.
From the new invitation, click on the title of the article for which you have been appointed as a reviewer.
On the newly opened page, you are asked whether you agree to evaluate the article. To accept, you must click on the “Accept Evaluation” button.
After accepting the evaluation, you will see the full text of the article in the "Files" section.
After reviewing the article, fill out the evaluation form in the "Evaluation" tab. Upload the evaluation file, if available.
Finally, click on the “Send Evaluation” button on the right side of the page.
Each reviewer who accepts the reviewer invitation is asked to fill out an evaluation form and express his/her acceptance or rejection opinions regarding the article by providing concrete justifications.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewer's
1) Objectivity: Reviews should be made objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias that may exist and take this into account when reviewing a manuscript. The reviewer must clearly express his/her evaluations supporting his/her decision.
2) Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with the opportunity to improve the article. In this respect, a reviewer who feels inadequate to review an article or who thinks that he will not be able to complete the review in a short time should not accept the reviewer invitation.
3) Confidentiality: All articles that reach the journal for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or contact the authors directly. The information contained in the study should not be used by a reviewer in his or her own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
4) Sensitivity to Research and Publication Ethics Violations: Reviewers should be careful about possible ethical issues in the article and report them to the editor.
5) Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review an article with possible conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with the authors or the institutions to which the articles are affiliated.
6) Request for Citation to the Reviewer: If a reviewer recommends that an author include references to the reviewer's (or their collaborators') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not for the purpose of increasing the reviewer's citation count or increasing the visibility of their work. See also Code of Ethics for Reviewers

Review Considerations
The reviewers' evaluations must be objective. During the arbitration process, reviewers are expected to make their evaluations by taking the following points into consideration.
• Does the article contain new and important information?
• Does the abstract clearly and neatly describe the content of the article?
• Is the method described in a complete and understandable manner?
• Are the comments made and conclusions proven by the findings?
• Are sufficient references given to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality sufficient?
• Do Abstract/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

Editor's Guide
Editors' Choice
Editors are selected among experts who have academic studies and/or academic titles in accordance with the publication scope of the journal.
Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

Coordinating the Reviewer' Process
The editor must ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial and timely. Research articles should be reviewed by at least two external reviewers, and the editor should seek additional opinions when necessary.
Determination of Reviewer
Editor; will select arbitrators with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation. The editor will follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent reviewers.
Privacy Protection
The editor must maintain the confidentiality of all materials submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. In exceptional cases and in consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where the editor deems it necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct. The editor must protect the identities of reviewers. Information contained in a submitted article should not be used in the editor's own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained during the arbitration process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal benefit.
Impartiality
Editors must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Investigation of Allegations
An editor who finds convincing evidence of an ethical violation should contact the editorial board and the publisher to arrange for the article to be corrected, retracted, or other corrections made.
Conflict of Interest
The editor should not be involved in decisions regarding articles written by himself or his family members. Additionally, such work must be subject to all the journal's usual procedures. The editor must follow ICMJE guidelines regarding disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.
Publication Decision
The editor is responsible for reviewing the reviewer reports and deciding which of the articles sent to the journal should be published. The editor must comply with the policies determined by the Editorial Board.
Journal Citation Request
The editor should not attempt to influence the journal's ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. The editor will not request references to articles from his own journal or another journal, except for scientific reasons.
Correction, Retraction, Expression of Concern
Editors may consider publishing corrections if minor errors are identified in the published article that do not affect the findings, interpretations, or conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the manuscript in cases of major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. If there is potential for misuse of research or publication by authors, if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and the authors' institutions have not investigated the incident, or if the potential investigation appears unfair or inconclusive, editors should consider issuing an expression of concern. COPE and ICJME guidelines regarding corrections, retractions or expressions of concern are taken into account.