Peer Review Process Guide

Selected articles are sent to at least two national/international referees for evaluation; The publication decision is made by the editor after the edits made by the authors in line with the requests of the referees and the referee process.

During the evaluation process, reviewers are expected to avoid personal comments towards the author(s) and criticisms are expected to be limited to the relevant study focus.

If the article is accepted or rejected without any criticism or suggestion, the referee evaluation will be deemed invalid. The article will be sent to another referee.

Evaluations made superficially without paying attention to the following points will be deemed invalid.

The following points should be taken into consideration during the article evaluation process:

Clarity and understandability of expression
Presentation of purpose, hypothesis and research questions
Method design and ethical considerations
Appropriate association of the subject with the literature
Adequacy of data analysis
Appropriately linking findings to objectives
Correlating comments with findings
Compliance with language rules and terminology of the relevant field
Innovation/contribution level to the relevant field

As a result of the article evaluation, the referee may present his/her reasons and suggest one of the following options:

The article is suitable for publication.
The article can be published after the necessary minor corrections. (It does not need to be seen again by the referee.)
The article can be published after the necessary minor corrections. (It will be seen again by the referee.)
The article can be published after the necessary major corrections.
The article is not suitable for publication.

Referees must ensure that all information regarding submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published, and if they notice any copyright infringement or plagiarism on the part of the author, they must report it to the editor. If the referee does not feel qualified about the subject of the article or does not seem able to provide timely feedback, he/she should inform the editor of this situation and ask not to include him/her in the referee process.

During the evaluation process, the editor clearly states that the articles sent to the referees for review are the private property of the authors and that this is a privileged communication. Referees and editorial board members cannot discuss articles with other people. Care should be taken to keep the identity of the referees confidential.