Referee Guide
Artuklu Kaime journal 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 are some tips on the article evaluation process, how to become a reviewer and how to write a good review.

Login with your username and password.
Log in to the Journal Panel of Artuklu Kaime Journal from the My Journals section.
Log in to the referee panel.
Click on the title of the article you have been assigned as a reviewer from the new invitation.
On the new page that opens, you are asked whether you accept to evaluate the article. To accept, you must click on the “Accept Review” button.
After accepting the evaluation, you will see the full text of the article from the “Files” section.
After reviewing the article, fill out the evaluation form in the “Evaluation” tab. Upload the evaluation file if you have one.
Finally, click on the “Submit Review” button on the right side of the page.
Each referee who accepts the referee invitation is asked to fill out an evaluation form and express his/her acceptance or rejection opinion on the article by providing concrete reasons.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers
1) Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias and take this into account when reviewing an article. The arbitrator should clearly state his/her considerations in support of 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 manuscript. In this respect, a referee who feels inadequate in reviewing an article or who feels that he/she cannot complete the review in a short period of time should not accept the referee invitation.
3) Confidentiality: All manuscripts received by the journal for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or communicate directly with the authors. Information contained in the manuscript should not be used by a reviewer in his/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 the Ethical Conduct of Research and Publication: Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
5) Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript with potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationship with the authors or the institutions with which the manuscript is affiliated.
6) Referee Citation Request: If a referee suggests that an author include citations to the referee's (or their collaborators') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the number of citations or the visibility of the referee's work. See also Code of Ethics for Referees

Conducting a Review
Referees' evaluations should be objective. During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following points.
• Does the article contain new and important information?
• Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
• Is the methodology described in a coherent and understandable way?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
• Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality adequate?
• Do the abstract/abstract/keywords/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

Editor's Guide

Selection of Editors
Editors are selected among experts who have academic studies and/or academic titles in accordance with the scope of the journal.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

Coordinate the Referee Process
The editor should 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 feedback when necessary.

Identification of Reviewers
The Editor will select reviewers 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.

Protecting Confidentiality
The editor must maintain the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the authors and reviewers concerned. In exceptional circumstances 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 identity of reviewers. Information contained in a submitted manuscript should not be used in the editor's own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or opinions obtained during the arbitration process should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.

Impartiality
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.

Investigation of Allegations
An editor who finds convincing evidence of ethical violations should contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to have the manuscript corrected, retracted or otherwise amended.

Conflict of Interest
The editor should not be involved in decisions on manuscripts written by him/herself or by family members. Furthermore, such a paper should be subject to all the usual procedures of the journal. The editor should follow the COPE guidelines on disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

Publication Decision
The Editor is responsible for reviewing the referee reports and deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor must comply with the policies set by the Editorial Board.

Request for Citation to the Journal
The editor should not attempt to influence the ranking of the journal by artificially increasing any journal metric. The Editor will not request citation of articles from his/her journal or any other journal, except for scientific reasons.

Correction, Retraction, and Issuance of an Expression of Concern
Editors may consider publishing a correction if minor errors are identified in the published article that do not affect the findings, interpretations and conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the manuscript if there are major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. Editors should consider issuing a statement of concern if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and that the authors' institutions have not investigated the incident, or if the possible investigation seems unfair or inconclusive, if there is a possibility of research or publication misconduct by the authors. COPE guidelines are followed regarding correction, retraction or expression of concern.