Considering HABITUS Journal's aim to publish original and significant articles, reviewers are expected to assist in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Below are guidelines for the manuscript evaluation process, how to become a reviewer, and tips on writing a good review. Additionally, our reviewer terms and conditions, based on COPE Principles, provide further information on how to conduct objective and constructive reviews. HABITUS Journal has adopted the double-blind peer review model.

Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected from experts who hold a doctoral degree and have publications in the relevant field of the manuscript. Information about experts affiliated with Turkish universities can be accessed from the YÖK Academic website and/or the Dergipark system, while information about international experts can be obtained from Publons.

Responsibilities of Reviewers
1. Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any potential personal biases and take them into account when evaluating a manuscript. The reviewer should clearly express their supportive evaluations to justify their decision.
2. Contribution to Editorial Decision: Reviewer evaluation helps the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with an opportunity to improve the manuscript. A reviewer who feels inadequate to review a manuscript or believes they cannot complete the review within a short timeframe should decline the invitation to review.
3. Confidentiality: All manuscripts submitted to the journal for review should be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share their reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone else or directly contact the authors. Information contained in the manuscript should not be used by a reviewer in their own research without the explicit 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 vigilant about possible ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
5. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript that may have potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with the authors or the institutions to which the manuscripts are connected.
6. Request for Citation to the Reviewer: If a reviewer suggests including references to the work of the reviewer (or their associates) in a manuscript, it should be for genuine scientific reasons rather than to increase the reviewer's citation count or enhance the visibility of their work. Also see: Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers.

Conducting Reviews
Reviews by reviewers should be objective. During the peer review process, reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts taking into account the following aspects:
• Does the manuscript contain new and significant information?
• Is the abstract clearly and accurately describing the content of the manuscript?
• Is the methodology clearly and comprehensively described?
• Do the interpretations and conclusions made align with the findings?
• Are there sufficient references to other works in the field?
• Is the quality of language sufficient?
• Do the abstract/keywords reflect the content of the manuscript accurately?