Articles are subjected to a completely confidential evaluation process. The names of the reviewers are kept confidential and are only known to the editors. Submissions for publication are evaluated impartially, regardless of the authors' race, gender, religious views, ethnic origin, nationality, political orientation, age, or reputation.
Reviewers are chosen from among the experts on the subjects mentioned in the articles. Each reviewew is asked to complete an evaluation form and, if necessary, prepare a separate report. Indıviduals with conflicting views on subject of an article cannot evaluate that article. (for example, those who have contributed to or collaborated with the authors, those who cannot provide an objective opinion on the work, employees or competitors of the institution being reviewed, or those special political and ideological views). Author(s) must contact the editorial board before the article is submitted to the reviewers to disclose any poTtential conflicts or interest.
Peer reviews are expected to be professional, honest, considerate, timely and constructive.

The essential elements required for a high-quality assessment are as follows:
• Reviewers primarily evaluate the study in terms of methodology.
• Reviewers should identify the strengths and weaknesses and of the work as a written communication tool, regardless of its results and presentations.
• Reviewers should provide their opinions on whether the study raises any ethical concerns or whether it meets scientific standards.
• Reviewers should provide useful suggestions for improving ther study. Their critics should be constructive and professional towards the author.
• The review should provide the editor with a clear perspective and content to make a decision regarding the acceptance (and/or revision) of the work.
• Reviewers are expected to identify uncited studies and to indicate which elements of the work have been cited by providing appropriate citations.
• Reviewers are expected to avoid direct contact with the author. In many cases, the opinions of two experts will be sought; however, these opinions may not align with the final decision made by the editor regarding the manuscript Even partial advice form a reviewer can create misleading impressions abour the review process fort he authors.
• Reviewers invited to assess a manuscript are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the review within 7 days. If no decision is communicated after this period, the reviewer is considered to have declined, and the field editor will appoint a new reviewer . Reiewers who accept the invitation are expected to provide their feedback within 15 days from the date of acceptance. If a reviewer does not complete the evaluation process within this period, an additional 7 days may be granted upon request. If the reviewer does not request an extension, a new reviewer will be appointed.

Confidentiality
During the review process, as a reviewer, any information and ideas obtained should remain confidential and must not be used to gain any unfair advantage.
• Unless with the written permission of the editor, reviewers must not share the work with their colleagues.
• Reviewers and editors , without the editor’s explicit perrmission, must not use the data, interpretations or topics of the work for professional or personal gain before its publication (except for purposes directly related to the review). They are also prohibited from writing any commentaries or reviews related to the work.
• In case of any conflict of interest or disagreements, reviewers should report to the editorial board.
• If reviewers are unable to review a manuscript or can only do so with some delay they should inform the relevant editor.
• Reviewers should evaluate the quality of the manuscript with an objective perspective, provide clear, unbiased and constructive critiques, and avoid personal criticism of the authors. There are resctrictions on the authors knowing or seeing the comments made by reviewers. Therefore, reviewers’ opinions should be clearly stated and supported to authors understand the basis of the comments and evaluations.

Our reviewers should follow the steps below to evaluate a manuscript submitted through the system:
1. Log in to the DergiPark panel with your username and password.
2. Select “Rize Theology Journal” from the list of journals on your panel.
3. Access the assigned manuscript by clicking on the “New Invitation” tab in the reviewer panel. (You can also access the manuscript directly using the access address in the invitation email sent to you.)
4. Accept the review invitation.
5. Click the “Show” button on the right side of the relevant manuscript to access the manuscript information.
6. Click on the “Files” tab and then click “Download” icon next to the manuscript under the “Article Files” section to download the manuscript to your computer.
7. Record your review notes on the manuscript. To do thid on a Word document click on the "Review" tab and then activate ‘Track Changes’ button. If necessary, you can add comments by using the "New Comment" button or by selecting the relevant text and right-clicking to choose ‘Add comment’ from the menu.
8. After completing your review, rename the file to “Reviewer Report”. Then remove any author information from the file. This step is crucial to ensure that the author does not have access to reviewer information (“File-Info-Check for Issues - Inspect Document-Check-Document properties and Personal Information-Remove All” or “Tools-Protect Document-Privacy-Document Properties -Personal Information-Remove from this Document”).
9. After accessing the relevant manuscript from the panel, go to the "Files" tab and use the "Add New File" button to upload your report.
10. In the manuscript panel, click on the "Review" tab, fill out the "Manuscript Review Form" at the bottom of the page and complete the process by clicking the "Submit Review" button. After completing this process, you should see the message “Your operation has been successfully completed” at the top of the page. If you do not see this message, the form has not been submitted. Please check if there are any fields in the form that you missed filling out. After addressing any omissions you can click the "Submit Review" button to send the form.
11. at the end of the form, the “Major Revision” option under the “Recommendation” section means “I would like to see the manuscript again after the suggested major revisions are made”, while the “Minor Revision” option means “There are some suggested minor revisions, but I do not want to see the manuscript again after these revisions are made”. If you requested a major revision, you will be assigned as a reviewer again in the next stage. The process described above will be repeated in this case (you will need to accept the invitation again, review the manuscript and repeat the steps mentioned.) The "Accept" option means that no further revisions are recommended, and the manuscript can be published as is.
Thank you for your contribution to our journal…