To evaluate an article sent from the system, follow the steps below:

• Login with your ID and password.
• Enter the Journal Panel of Chaos Theory and Applications from the My Journals section.
• Log in to the reviewer panel.
• Click the title of the article which be appointed for peer review by you from the new invitation section.
• Acceptance or denial of the peer review will ask you on the page that will pop up. For the accept of peer review, please click “Accept the Review” in the green section.
• You will see the full article in the “Documents” after accept review.
• After reviewing the article, please fill the review form in the “Reviews” section. Upload the review file if there is one.
• Lastly, click the button “Send the Review” that spotting the right side of the page.

Peer Reviewing Processes

• In the Chaos Theory and Applications, the referees are selected from among the experts on the subjects covered in the articles. All selected referees are informed about the responsibilities of the referees and the ethical principles, article evaluation criteria, and procedure of the CHTA.
• Reviewers must take into account after accept peer reviewing on the system ethical principles.
• Reviewers should only accept reviewing of articles for which they have the necessary expertise to perform an appropriate review, can respect the confidentiality of blind peer review, and keep the details of the article confidential at all times.
• Reviewers invited for article review are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the review within 5 days. The reviewer who does not make a decision at the end of this period is deemed to have rejected the review, and the editor appoints a new reviewer. The reviewers who accept the review are expected to express their opinions within 30 days from the date of invitation acceptance. An additional period of up to 5 days is given to the referee who does not complete the review process within this period if the reviewer requests. If the referee does not request additional time, a new referee can be appointed.
• Each reviewer who accepts the invitation to review is asked to fill in a review form and declare the acceptance or rejection opinions about the article by providing concrete reasons.

In the Article Evaluation Form, the referees are expected to answer the following questions.

• The paper contribute to the body of knowledge.  (Yes / No)
• The paper is technically sound. (Yes / No)
• The references are provided applicable and sufficient. (Yes / No)
• Title reflects the content of the article. (Yes / No)
  
• In the abstract section the objectives and methods are found and reflected sufficiently. (Very good / Good / Moderate / Bad / Very bad)
• Introduction and other parts are written appropriately. (Very good / Good / Moderate / Bad / Very bad)
• Conclusions is given appropriately. (Very good / Good / Moderate / Bad / Very bad)
• Table / Images have necessary and / or sufficient clarification. (Very good / Good / Moderate / Bad / Very bad)

There are also notes to the editor and authors in the evaluation form. Please see the "Chaos Theory and Applications (CHTA) Article Evaluation Form".

After completing this form, the referees can make the following decisions:

Major Revision, Minor Revision, Reject, Accept

• If one of the peer review reports is positive and the other is negative, the article is sent to a third reviewer.
• A single peer review report is sufficient for the rejection of a manuscript, but at least two peer review reports are required for its acceptance.
• If one of the peer reviews reports "Accept" or "Minor Revision" and the other "Major Revision" and the editor's opinion favors the acceptance of the article, the manuscript is sent to the same reviewer after the author makes the corrections. According to the opinion of the referee who has a "Major Revision" report, the article can be rejected, accepted, or sent to a new referee.
• The reviewer requesting revision may request to re-evaluate the article after revision. An additional 15 days are given to the reviewer for this evaluation.
• Reviewers can contact the editor via the DergiPark messages section for further guidance or report any suspected violations. The correspondence here is not seen by the authors.
• The data of the articles based on field research or data analysis can be requested from the editor by the referee for a healthy review of the analyses in the article. The editor of the journal communicates with the author in this regard and transmits the data to the reviewer.
• Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors, and/or research funders. When a conflict of interest is foreseen, the referee should contact the editorial board and indicate a possible conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into account in any conflicts of interest that may arise. (https://publicationethics.org/case/conflict-interest).
• Reviewers cannot make use of the data of the articles they have reviewed before they are published or share this data with others.
• The names of the reviewers who make evaluations in the journal are not disclosed/published.