• Many factors play a role in the selection of the referees. Factors such as experience, suitability of the field of study are the most determining factors in the selection of the referee.
• The author(s) may request not to send their work to some referees because of conflict of interest.
• The referee list is periodically evaluated by the editorial within each issue and is updated and shared on the generic page.
• Upon their request, referee documents are sent to our referees, following the issue of the publication of the work they referee.
• For report writing, the referee evaluation form included in the e-mail attachment sent to the referees should be used.
• Referee evaluations are expected to focus especially on these following questions;
Does the study make an original contribution to the knowledge in the field?
Is the study scientifically up to date?
• Referee reviews are expected to be critical and unbiased.
• Referees are expected to make a text-based assessment only, and to avoid statements about the author's / authors' inadequacies.
• In addition to the evaluation criteria, referees are expected to detail their negative opinions and state their justifications in the space next to the evaluation form.
• In particular, the referee who gives a negative opinion should present the weaknesses of the study and reasons for refusal to the author with his evaluations.
• The editor intervenes in the spelling mistakes in the referee reports, the statements that deem the author/authors inadequate, the expressions that contain vulgar or insulting or insulting, and information errors.
• Referees are given 30 days to evaluate a study.
• If the referee is unable to evaluate the work within the given period, s/he may request additional time from the Editor or inform the Editor that s/he cannot evaluate the study due to time constraints. Thus, the author's time loss can be prevented and sufficient time is provided for the editor to appoint a new referee.