Each article is reviewed by the editor and if it is found to be suitable for publication, it is sent to two independent reviewers for double-blind peer-review evaluation. Based on consultations among members of the Editorial Board concerned with their suggestions, the editor then decides to accept, revise, or reject the article as it is.

Editors' Duties

- Publishing Decision
- Impartiality
- Security
- Disagreements and Statement
- Collaboration to take part in research


Editors' Statement of Opinion

Dicle Academy Journal asks its editors to write a short commentary on their views that could potentially be seen as influencing their impartial assessments. Such transparency is a requirement of an ethical obligation to authors and readers, as well as an equal response to the expression of opinion expected from authors, reviewers, and reviewers. The editorial staff are expected to distance themselves from decision-making arrangements that could potentially create a disagreement.

Selection and Duties of the Persons Who Will Make the Evaluation

The staff of the Dicle Academy Journal, which evaluates the works, is chosen from among the experts of the subjects mentioned in the articles. The reasons for their selection are due to their objectivity and scientific knowledge. All those who will make the evaluations are informed about what Dicle Academy Magazine expects from them. Each of them is asked to fill in an evaluation form and, if necessary, to prepare a separate report. Individuals who have a disagreement on the topic of an article cannot rate it (for example, someone who has contributed to or collaborated with one of the authors, or who is unable to provide an objective opinion on the work; also an employee or competitor of an institution whose work is being reviewed). , such as people with specific political and ideological views). These people should contact the editorial board and state a possible disagreement/conflict of interest before the article is submitted to the referee committee.

- Evaluations are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, punctual and constructive. The essential elements required for a high-quality assessment are:

- Evaluators should identify the weak and strong aspects of the work organization and methodology and express their comments on them.
- Evaluators should accurately and constructively criticize the author's ability to handle data (taking into account that data may be limited).
- Evaluators should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the work as a written communication tool, regardless of its composition, methodology, results, and handling.
- Evaluators should express their thoughts on whether the study has content that may raise ethical concerns or whether it has low scientific standards.
- Evaluators should provide useful advice to the authors so that the work can be improved.
- Criticism of the reviewers should be constructive and professional towards the author.
- The review should provide the editor with the correct perspective and content so that he or she can decide on the acceptance (and/or revision) of the work (and/or its revision).
- Evaluators are expected to identify studies that have not been cited and use citations to indicate which elements of the work have been cited previously. Evaluators should also report striking similarities between the reviewed text and any work published in another journal or submitted to the Dicle Academy Journal.
- Evaluators are sensitively expected not to contact the author directly. In many cases, the opinion of two experts will be sought; however, the views of these experts may not be the same as the final decision of the editor on the article in question. Receiving advice from a reviewer, even partial, may give authors the wrong impression of the review process.

Security

- Information and ideas obtained as a referee during the evaluation process are kept confidential and cannot be used as an advantage in any way. Since the application is a privileged notification, it is kept completely confidential.

- The application cannot be taken or copied by the evaluators. In addition, reviewers cannot share the work with their colleagues without the written permission of the editor.
- Evaluators and editors cannot make professional or personal use of the data, interpretations or topics of the work (unless directly related to the evaluation) or write edits or comments on the work before the publication of the work, unless they have the special permission of the authors.
- In case of any difference of opinion/conflict of interest, the evaluators should notify the editorial board.
- If the reviewers are unable to review any work, or if they can only do so with a little delay, they should inform the Dicle Academy Journal about this.
- Evaluators should objectively evaluate the quality of the work in question, make clear, unbiased and constructive criticisms, and avoid personal criticism of the authors. There is no harm in letting the authors know/see the comments made by the referees. Therefore, the opinions of the referees should be clearly stated and supported so that the authors can understand the basis of the comments and evaluations.
- Those who make the evaluation can easily report this to the editor if they suspect any violation, and at the same time, they should not share the situation with other people unless they receive a notification from Dicle Academy Journal that they can do so.

- When there is an ethical concern about any work that has been published or is under evaluation and for more information, you can send an email to lutfusizer@gmail.com.