Considering that Rouya Türkiyyah aims to publish original and important articles, we ask referees to help us evaluate the article submissions we receive.
Below are some tips on the review process, how to become a reviewer, and how to write a good review. Also included are our terms and conditions for reviewing based on the COPE Principles, which provide more information on how to be an objective and constructive reviewer.
Rouya Türkiyyah has adopted a double blind reviewing model.
Selection of Reviewers
The referees are selected among experts who have a PhD degree in the field of science to which the article relates and who have publications.
Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers
1) Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias and take this into account when reviewing an article. The reviewer should clearly articulate the considerations that support their decision.
2) Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with the opportunity to improve the manuscript. In this respect, a reviewer who feels inadequate in reviewing an article or who feels that he/she cannot complete the review in a short period of time should not accept the invitation to review.
3) Confidentiality: All manuscripts received by the journal for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or communicate directly with the authors. Information contained in the manuscript should not be used by a reviewer in his/her own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
4) Sensitivity to the Ethical Conduct of Research and Publication: Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
5) Referee Citation Request: If a referee suggests that an author include citations to the referee's (or their collaborators') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the number of citations or the visibility of the referee's work. 

Conducting a Review
Referees' evaluations should be objective. During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following points.
• Does the article contain new and important information?
• Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
• Is the methodology described in a coherent and understandable way?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
• Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality adequate?
• Do the abstract/abstract/keywords/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

In the double-blind peer review process, both author and reviewer identities are kept confidential. Authors must remove any identifying information from their manuscripts, including names, affiliations, and acknowledgments. Previous work by the authors should be cited as "Anonymous" and file/document properties must not contain author information.
Authors must avoid mentioning funding sources or acknowledgments; this information can be added later if the paper is accepted.
Reviewers are selected based on expertise and assess manuscripts for originality, relevance, methodological quality, literature review, clarity, and writing style. They provide anonymous feedback to authors and may send confidential comments to editors. While not required, reviewers can suggest language improvements.
Final Review is conducted by the Editorial Board, which makes the ultimate publication decision. Even if peer reviews are positive, the Board may reject a paper if it violates journal rules or falls outside its scope.