Information for Referees

In order for the articles to be examined objectively and independently, “Blind Refereeing” increases the quality of publication and provides trust. For this reason, the principle of double-blind refereeing is applied in the article evaluation process in our journal. In our journal, the author(s) and referees cannot directly communicate with each other in the articles under review. The referees' evaluations and comments are carried out through the journal management system. The referees' evaluation forms and opinions on the article text are delivered to the authors by the editor. The editor should monitor that the referees complete the evaluation process objectively, independently and ethically.

Our journal's referees must have the following ethical responsibilities:
Referees,
• Must fulfill their ethical responsibilities during the article evaluation process.
• Must accept to review studies related to their own fields. Must not review articles outside their fields.
• Must comply with the article evaluation period.
• Must complete the article evaluation process impartially and confidentially.
• Must carry out the evaluation process objectively without considering personal characteristics such as gender, religion, political, commercial conflicts, citizenship, etc.
• If they think they are faced with a conflict of interest during the article evaluation process, they should refuse to evaluate the article and inform the journal editor about it.
• They should use a polite/constructive language and style when evaluating the article they are reviewing. They should avoid offensive, derogatory, insulting, slanderous and hostile comments and expressions.
• Due to the principle of confidentiality, they can only use the content of the studies they review after they are published. They cannot use any information from rejected studies.
• They can suggest citations that will contribute scientifically to the author(s)'s work. However, referees should not make suggestions to increase their own citation count.
• They should not access information about the author(s)'s identity. If the author(s)'s information is accessed or this information is obtained, the evaluation process should be terminated.
• They should be aware of their personal biases that may occur during the refereeing process and should take this into consideration when reviewing the article.
• They should write their reasons for rejecting the articles clearly and in detail in the referee report.