The journal provides certain conditions for articles such as complying with the ethical rules and scientific standards and not having commercial concerns. The policies of the journal are conducted according to the rules of the "Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers" advised by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

INFORMATION FOR REVIEWERS
During the peer-reviewing process, the reviewers are expected to be objective and make evaluations by considering the following questions:
- Does the article contain new and important information?
- Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article?
- Is the method holistic and clearly defined?
- Are the comments made and conclusions proven by the findings?
- Are adequate citations made to other studies in the field?
- Is the language quality adequate?

Reviewers should change their names in the Track Changes field in the Microsoft Word document before writing their suggestions on the full-text files of the article in a way that the authors cannot recognize them (Example: Referee, Anonymous, Advisor, X, etc.).

Ethical Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers
• The reviewers agree to evaluate the articles sent to them for evaluation, which are suitable for their field of expertise.
• The reviewers protect the journal's impartiality and confidentiality policy in the evaluation of articles.
• Informs the journal editor if an unethical situation is encountered during the evaluation process.
• When it thinks that there is any conflict of interest in the article, it refuses to review the study and informs the journal editor.
• The articles comply with the confidentiality principle after the review process and delete the evaluated studies from the digital environment after the evaluation process.
• It reviews the articles objectively, only in terms of content and scientific contribution.
• Does not allow race, gender, religious belief, political views, or economic/commercial concerns to influence the evaluation process.
• Uses constructive and courteous language during the evaluation process, avoids personal comments and hurtful expressions, and examines the article in a constructive and respectful manner.
• Revises the accepted article on time and in accordance with the above-mentioned ethical rules.

Publons Review Training Videos
https://publons.com/community/academy/resources
https://publons.com/community/academy/