Reviewer Responsibilities
In the Modular Journal article evaluation process, Blind Peer Review (at least two referees) is carried out for each article. In order for the work to be accepted to the journal, it must receive a positive evaluation from 2 referees. When necessary, a third referee may be asked to contribute to the evaluation process.
During the manuscript evaluation process, the evaluation forms, notes on the text and correction requests are sent to the author(s) by the editors via the journal management system.
Referees should only accept to evaluate articles related to their field of expertise.
The reviewers should carry out the evaluation in impartiality and confidentiality. In accordance with this principle, they should destroy the articles they have reviewed after the evaluation process and use them only after publication. The evaluation should be carried out objectively, and nationality, gender, religious beliefs, political beliefs and commercial concerns should not impair the impartiality of the evaluation.
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript in a constructive manner in accordance with the rules of academic etiquette; they should avoid personal comments containing insults and hostility.
Reviewers should evaluate the accepted manuscript within the deadline.

Ethics and Confidentiality Principles - Use of Generatif AI
The refereeing process should be conducted within the framework of ethical responsibility, impartiality and confidentiality principles, which form the basis of scientific publishing. Modular Journal has adopted the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Refereeing Ethics Rules.
Reviewers are obliged to treat the submitted article as a confidential document from the moment they accept the invitation to review. The content of the article should only be used for review purposes; it should not be shared with third parties, discussed, or uploaded to any digital platform or artificial intelligence-based tool. Uploading the submitted article or any part thereof to artificial intelligence systems may constitute a violation of the authors' rights to privacy, intellectual property, and data protection. Similarly, as referee evaluation reports may contain confidential information about the article and authors, uploading these reports to any artificial intelligence tool, even for the purpose of obtaining support in terms of language or style, is inappropriate.
The evaluation of a scientific article requires critical thinking, academic judgement, and ethical responsibility, which are unique to humans. Therefore, generative artificial intelligence or artificial intelligence-assisted technologies should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific evaluation of an article. Artificial intelligence tools may produce erroneous, incomplete, or biased results in the evaluation process.

The referee is responsible for the entirety of the report they produce during the evaluation process and is obliged to act in accordance with the ethical principles governing this process.

Conflicts of Interest
When the referees realise that there is a conflict of interest, they should refuse to evaluate the article and inform the editors.
Each author should disclose any direct or indirect financial interests or connections in the reported work, results, reflections, or opinions expressed, or any other circumstances that may raise the question of bias, including relevant commercial or other sources of funding to the authors or related departments or organisations, personal relationships, or direct academic competition.
The editors guarantee the independent and impartial completion of the publication process, taking into account conflicts of interest between the author(s), reviewers and other editors.