The Journal of Art History may offer "Reviewer" positions to active or retired individuals with academic qualifications and degrees from state institutions, foundations, or private organizations, and who have worked in relevant fields of expertise. The offer must be made via an invitation letter through the DergiPark automation system to individuals who possess expertise, research, and/or publications and studies related to the article's subject matter. The principle of "blind peer review" is strictly adhered to. Within this framework, the identities of the author and reviewers are kept confidential. Just as the author and reviewer are kept anonymous from each other, so too are the reviewers themselves. This minimizes potential subjective influences. The editorial board takes this confidentiality very seriously to ensure that reviewers can make objective decisions without being influenced or worried. In the evaluation process, care is taken to ensure that no names of individuals appear or are revealed in the files uploaded to the system or exchanged between parties. Additionally, the following key points are considered:
• Reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution as the author. • Reviewers should not have any personal closeness, kinship, or current professor-student relationships with the author. • Reviewers should not have personal or family ties to each other. • Reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution or unit as each other or the author. • In this context, if a reviewer, without the knowledge of the editorial board, discovers any relationships or information that subjectively affect the principle of "blind peer review" – "impartiality," they should withdraw from the review process by informing the editorial board. In terms of main evaluation principles, the Art History Journal's fundamental expectations from reviewers are as follows:
• To conduct the article review process taking into account the scope of the Art History Journal, its main writing rules, and ethical principles. • To determine the academic-scientific quality of the article and evaluate it accordingly. • To determine whether the article contributes to the field of Art History, whether it provides a solution to a specific problem, answers questions, corrects misconceptions, or improves on missing information; • To determine the originality value or the presence of "repetition" and "similarity" in the article, which may not be detectable by plagiarism detection programs and artificial intelligence, but can be understood through knowledge and experience in the field. • Inform the editorial team of these points by noting them in the relevant sections of the evaluation form or in the report section, where other technical and academic questions are also asked.