Reviewers are volunteer scientists who evaluate a scientific work for its suitability for publication, originality, and methodological validity. This role forms the basis of academic publishing and includes the following responsibilities.

1. Ethical and Privacy Responsibilities

• Confidentiality: Please be aware that submitted articles are confidential documents prior to publication and do not use the information in these articles for personal gain or share it with third parties before publication.

• Conflict of Interest: If you have a direct or indirect conflict of interest (financial, corporate, or personal) with the authors or subject of the article, you must immediately inform the editor and decline the review.

• Objectivity: Conducting the evaluation in an objective manner, focusing solely on the scientific content, without regard to the author's identity, institution, or gender.

2. Time and Quality Responsibilities

• Timely Response: Complete the evaluation within the timeframe specified by the journal. If this is not possible, request an extension or immediately decline the assignment and notify the editor.

• Comprehensive Review: This involves not only making a recommendation on whether or not the article should be published, but also providing detailed and constructive criticism to support that recommendation. This criticism should clearly highlight the article's strengths and weaknesses.

• Limitations of Expertise: If the reviewer believes the article's topic is outside their area of ​​expertise, they may decline the review or inform the editor of this.

3. Content Evaluation

In their reports, reviewers should thoroughly examine the following aspects of the article:

• Scientific Contribution: The level of original and significant scientific contribution the study makes to the field.

• Methodology: The validity of the research methods used and the accuracy of the statistical analyses applied.

• Findings and Discussion: Whether the findings are clearly presented and whether the discussion section logically supports the conclusions.

• Literature Review: Whether the relevant core literature has been comprehensively and accurately addressed.

• Language and Clarity: Whether the article's grammar, spelling rules, and overall academic presentation quality are adequate.

4. Reporting Ethical Violations

During the article review process, the referee;

• Evidence that the article has been published elsewhere,

• Serious suspicion of plagiarism,

• Suspicion of data forgery or distortion,

If the editor detects any suspicion or evidence of ethical violations, such as those mentioned above, they are obligated to report this immediately and with concrete evidence solely to the journal editor. Such matters should be handled through the editor, not directly with the author.