Reviewer Guide
Considering that SEBED aims to publish original and important articles, we ask the reviewers to assist in the evaluation of the article submissions we receive.
Below are recommendations on the article review process, how to become a reviewer, and how to write a good review. We also have our terms and conditions for reviewing, based on the COPE Principles, which provide more information on how to conduct objective and constructive review.
SEBED has adopted the double-blind review model.

Selection of Reviewers
The reviewers are selected from among experts who have a PhD degree in the field of science related to the article and who have publications. The information of the experts from Turkish universities can be accessed from YÖK Academic website and the information of the experts from abroad can be accessed from Publons.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers
1) Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively. Reviewers must be aware of any personal biases and take this into account when reviewing an article. The reviewer must clearly express his/her evaluations in support of his/her 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 article. In this respect, a reviewer who feels inadequate in reviewing an article or who thinks that he/she cannot complete the review in a short time must not accept the reviewer invitation.
3) Confidentiality: All articles received by the journal for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers must not share reviews or information about the article with anyone or communicate directly with the authors. Information contained in the article must 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 must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
4) Sensitivity to the Ethical Violations of Research and Publication: Reviewers must be alert to potential ethical issues in the article and report them to the editor.
5) Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must not agree to review an article with potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with the authors or the institutions to which the articles are affiliated.
6) Request for Reviewer Citation: If a reviewer suggests that an author include citations to the Reviewer's (or their partners’) study, it must be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the reviewer's citation count or increase the visibility of their study.

Reviewing
Reviewers' evaluations must be objective. During the reviewering process, reviewers are expected to make their evaluations by considering 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 method suitable for the purpose of the article and is it clearly defined?
- Are the comments and conclusions supported by the findings?
- Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
- Is the language quality adequate?
- Do the abstract in Turkish/abstract/keywords in turkish/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

Editor’s Guide
Turkey Editors Workshop Group
SEBED encourages editors to be in contact with other editors, considering that it will be useful for them. Our editors are members of the Turkish Editors Workshop Group.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
Coordinating the Peer-Review Process
The editor must ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial and timely. Research articles must be reviewed by at least two external reviewers, and the editor must seek additional feedback when necessary.

Determination of Reviewers
The Editor will select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation. The Editor will follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent reviewers.

Privacy Protection
The editor must maintain the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the authors and reviewers concerned. In exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where the editor deems it necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct. The editor must protect the identity of reviewers. Information contained in a submitted article must not be used in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained during the reviewering process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.

Impartiality
The editor must evaluate articles for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.

Investigation of Claims
An editor who finds convincing evidence of an ethical violation must contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to have the article corrected, retracted, or other correction made.

Conflict of Interest
The editor must not be involved in decisions about articles written by him/her or his/her family members. In addition, such a study must be subject to all the usual procedures of the journal. The editor must follow the ICMJE guidelines regarding disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

Publication Decision
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal must be published by examining the reviewer reports. The editor must comply with the policies determined by the Editorial Board.

Journal Citation Request
The editor must not attempt to influence the ranking of the journal by artificially increasing any journal metric. The editor will not request citation of articles from his/her journal or any other journal, except for scientific reasons.

Correction, Retraction, and Issuing an Expression of Concern
Editors may consider issuing a correction if minor errors are detected in the published article that do not affect the findings, comments and conclusions. Editors must consider retracting the article if there are major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. Editors must consider issuing a statement of concern if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and that the authors' institutions have not investigated the case, or if the possible investigation seems unfair or inconclusive, and if there is a possibility of research or publication misconduct by the authors. COPE and ICJME guidelines are taken into account with regard to correction, retraction or expression of concern.