Reviewer's Guidelines

1. Log in to the system with your e-mail address assigned to the article.
2. Click on the journal in your panel and switch to the role of Reviewer.
3. You can see the article in "New Invitation" on the page that opens. Click on it and switch to View.
4. Thus, the process page of the article will be opened. After you accept the invitation, you can access the Files.
5. You can download the file from the Files menu and upload your evaluation with the "Add New File" button.
6. Then you can complete your evaluation by filling out the form.

Reviewer Guide as document or video

The manuscripts sent to the International Journal of Aeronautics and Astronautics (IJAA) are sent to the referees after passing the editorial pre-control evaluations such as compliance with the journal's writing rules, spelling errors, statistical and language evaluation, and plagiarism screening.
Manuscripts undergo "Double-Blind Peer Review". Each manuscript is sent to at least 2 referees. If the referees agree, the manuscript is accepted for publication. If the referees reject the article, the article is directly rejected. If one of the referees accepts and the other rejects, the manuscript is sent to another referee and it is accepted or rejected according to the referee's decision.
The review process of the manuscripts is maintained by the appropriate Section Editors of the journal. The information required to be filled in the Article Evaluation Form is sent to the author in accordance with the double-blind refereeing policy (The referee information is not shared with the author, the referee can correspond with the editor). If a review is made on the manuscript file, you are prevented from appearing as the document owner while submitting your suggestions/questions, and the document is turned into an anonymous user. Due to the DergiPark software, there is a problem in accessing the Article Evaluation Form from Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge search engines. Therefore, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, etc. use it. You can only send the points you want the editor to see from the message area to the editor in the system. In the Suggestion section, you are expected to choose one of the options such as Accept, Reject, Major Revision and Minor Revision. After your Major or Minor Revision recommendation, the manuscript will be sent to the author. After the major revision, the manuscript will be sent to the referee who recommended the major revision for re-examination, but if the minor revision is not requested by the referee, it will only be checked by the editor. The final decision on the manuscript will be given by the editor.

IJAA's Ethical Polices for Reviewers

Conflict of Interest Statement: If you notice any conflict of interest regarding the authors during the peer-review, notify the editor immediately so that another reviewer can be assigned to review the article.

Double Blind Process: After plagiarism check, eligible manuscripts are evaluated by the Editor for originality, methodology, importance of the topic covered and compatibility with the scope of the journal. The Editor ensures that the manuscripts undergo a fair double blind review and, if the manuscript meets the formal requirements, submits the manuscript to the evaluation of at least two referees from Turkey and/or abroad. If the referees deem necessary, they approve the publication of the manuscript after the requested changes are made by the authors.

Privacy Policy: The reviewer should keep the existence and subject of the manuscript confidential, and should not share it with others before the article is published or even if it is rejected.

Referee Attitude: Reviewer should not use the information in the study for their own benefit before the article is published.

Reporting Ethical Concerns: Reviewers should report suspected plagiarism, such as copying data from other studies or using it without permission. It must also report any ethical concerns in the article, including the possibility of misuse/harming people or animals.

Fraud: Please contact the editor if the reviewers think that the findings in the article are inaccurate and they suspect any misconduct in the article.

Writing the Evaluation Result: Dear Reviewer, please detailed write in the "comments" section of the evaluation form, not only your stylistic views, but also your contributions to the article, your scientific views and scientific contribution to the article.