Articles are subjected to a completely confidential evaluation process. The names of the referees are kept confidential and are known only to the editors. Applications for publication are evaluated impartially, regardless of the authors' race, gender, religious affiliation, ethnic origin, nationality, political orientation, age, or reputation.

The referees are chosen from among the experts on the subjects mentioned in the articles. Each of them is asked to fill in an evaluation form and, if necessary, to prepare a separate report. Those who have a difference of opinion on the subject of any article cannot evaluate that article. (For example, someone who has contributed to or collaborated with one of the authors, or who is unable to provide an objective opinion on the work, who are also an employee or competitor of an institution whose work is being reviewed, and who have specific political and ideological views). Author(s) should contact the editorial board and state a possible disagreement/conflict of interest before the article is submitted to the referee committee.

Referee reviews are expected to be professional, honest, tactful, punctual and constructive.

• The referees evaluate the study primarily in terms of method.

• Referees should identify the weaknesses and strengths of the work as a written communication tool, regardless of its results and operations.

• Referees should express their opinions about whether the study has content that may raise ethical concerns or whether it has low scientific standards.

• Referees should provide helpful advice to authors so that the work can be improved. Referees' criticisms should be constructive towards the author and professional.

• The review should provide the editor with the right perspective and content so that he/she can decide on acceptance (and/or revision) of the work.

• Referees are expected to identify unused studies and use citations to indicate which elements of the work have been cited.

• Referees are sensitively expected not to contact the author directly. In many cases, the opinion of two experts will be sought; however, the views of these experts may not be the same as the final decision of the editor on the article in question. Receiving advice from a referee, even partial, may give authors the wrong impression of the review process.

• Referees invited for article evaluation are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the evaluation within 7 days. The referee who does not make any decision at the end of this period is deemed to have rejected the evaluation and the field editor appoints a new referee. The referees who accept the evaluation are expected to express their opinions within 15 days from the date of invitation acceptance. If the referee does not complete the evaluation process within this period, an additional period of 7 days is given if he/she requests it. If the referee does not request additional time, a new referee is appointed.

Privacy
Information and ideas obtained as a referee during the evaluation process are kept confidential and cannot be used as an advantage in any way.
• Referees cannot share the work with their colleagues without the written permission of the editor.
• Referees and editors cannot make professional or personal use of the data, interpretations or topics of the work (unless directly related to evaluation) or write edits or comments on the work before the publication of the work, unless they have the specific permission of the authors.
• In case of any disagreement/conflict of interest, the referees should notify the editorial board.
• Referees should inform the editors if they are unable to review any work or can only do so with some delay.
• Referees should objectively evaluate the quality of the work in question, make clear, unbiased and constructive criticisms, and avoid personal criticism of the authors. There is no harm in letting the authors know/see the comments made by the referees. Therefore, the opinions of the referees should be clearly stated and supported so that the authors can understand the basis of the comments and evaluations.

Our referees should follow the steps below to evaluate an article sent through the system:
1. Log in to the DergiPark panel with your username and password.
2. Select “Rize Theology Journal” from the journals listed in your panel.
3. Access the assigned article by clicking on the “New Invitation” tab from the referee panel. (You can also reach the article by using the access address in the invitation mail that reaches you directly.)
4. Accept the invitation to referee.
5. Enter the article information by clicking the “Show” button on the right of the relevant article.
6. Click on the “Files” tab and download the article to your computer by clicking on the “Download” icon to the right of the article under the “Article Files” heading.
7. Record your evaluation notes on the article. For this, you need to activate the "Track Changes" button after clicking the "Review" tab in the Word document. If necessary, an explanation can be added by using the "New Comment" button or from the menu that appears when you select the relevant text and right click.
8. After completing your evaluation, change the file name to “Referee Report”. Then delete the author information from the file. It is important that you do this so that the author does not access the referee information (“File-Info-Check Issues Inspect Document-Check-Document properties and Personal Information-Remove All” or “Tools-Protect Document-Privacy-Registrant-Personal Information-Remove From This File”) .
9. After logging in to the relevant article from the panel, go to the "Files" tab and upload your report by using the "Add New File" button.
10. In the article panel, click on the "Evaluation" tab, fill out the "Article Evaluation Form" at the bottom of the page and complete the process by clicking the "Send Evaluation" button. After this process, you should see the message “Your transaction completed successfully” at the top of the page. If you have not seen this message, the form has not been sent. Please check if there are any fields in the form that you have not filled in even though it should be filled. After completing the deficiencies, you can send the form by clicking the "Send Evaluation" button.
11. The “Major Revision” option in the “Suggestion” heading at the end of the form means “I want to see the text again after the corrections I recommend”, and the “Minor Revision” option means “There are some corrections that I recommend, but I do not want to see the text again after these corrections”. If you have requested a major revision, you will be reassigned to the article as a referee in the next process. At this stage, the process described above is repeated in the same way (In this case, you need to accept the invitation again, review the text and repeat the above steps.) The "Accept" option indicates that the author is not recommended to edit and the text can be published as it is.
Thank you for your contribution to our journal…