Transparency Principle
• Editor and Field Editor's pre-evaluation is completed and the works are sent to two reviewers from the field. If there is a difference of opinion between the reviewer evaluations, the opinion of a third reviewer is sought.

• All correspondence between author and editor in the TAY Journal; Editor, Field Editor and reviewer evaluation processes are transparent.

• The names of the authors are not specified in the studies sent to the reviewers and the names of the reviewers in the reports sent to the authors.
• If the reviewer thinks that there are ethical problems, data integrity and academic conflict problems regarding the study, he / she should definitely share / share these issues with the Editor.
• In addition to a holistic and coherent evaluation process, the Editor may ask the reviewers to make suggestions for each other's reports in order to provide a better academic contribution to the author. In this case, the names of the reviewers are not communicated to each other.

Responsibilities of a Reviewer
• The reviewer should first check the file sent to him/her and make sure that the file was opened without any problems.
• The reviewer should inform the editor within fifteen (15) days whether he / she can evaluate the work, taking into account the evaluation period envisaged for the study and the suitability of the subject of the study to him/her.
• If the reviewer thinks that he/she cannot act fairly due to conflict of interest (author, institution, financier etc.), he/she should inform the editor that she cannot evaluate the work.
• If the reviewer has received support from someone else while evaluating the study, it is requested that this person also inform the Editor. He thinks that it would be ethical to include the name of the person in question as a reviewer as a journal.

Publication Policy and Ethical Issues
• The author may request that certain persons are not reviewers due to conflict of interest.
• Since it is not possible for the editor to know all the mentioned elements, the reviewers are expected to inform the editor about the situations that prevent them from making a fair evaluation.
• No matter how hard the editor tries on a work, he may not be able to notice the violations of the editorial policy and ethical problems. It is very important for the field experts to warn the Editor when faced with these situations.

Feedback to Reviewers
• The final version of a study that has been decided to be published is sent only to the reviewer who wants to see the study again.
• The reviewer can see that their views are not fully reflected in the study after a study has been published. It is possible that other reviewers have different views and the Editor has taken these opinions into account. In this case, the opinions of the other reviewers can be sent to him in line with the request of the reviewer who evaluated the study.
• According to the recommendations of the reviewers, the Editor takes one of the following ways:
o Accept the article for publication with a minor or major correction request,
o Ask the author / authors to organize their article in accordance with the reviewer opinions and initiate a new evaluation process,
o Reject the article.
• In the reports they prepare, the reviewers can express a definite opinion on whether the study is published or not. However, the Editor will make a decision based on the opposing views of the reviewers evaluating the work.
• The editor is looking at the strength of the reviewers 'or authors' arguments, not the number of reviewers giving their acceptance or rejection. The editor considers reports containing strong, justified statements rather than reports with yes or no evaluation questions.

Reviewer Selection
• Many factors play a role in the selection of the reviewers. Factors such as experience, suitability of the field of study are the most determining factors in the selection of the reviewer.
• The author(s) may request not to send their work to some reviewers because of conflict of interest.
• The reviewer list is periodically evaluated by the editorial within each issue and is updated and shared on the generic page.
• Upon their request, reviewer documents are sent to our reviewers, following the issue of the publication of the work they reviewer.

Report Writing
• For report writing, the reviewer evaluation form included in the e-mail attachment sent to the reviewers should be used.
• Reviewer evaluations are expected to focus especially on these following questions;
o Does the study make an original contribution to the knowledge in the field?
o Is the study scientifically up to date?
• Reviewer reviews are expected to be critical and unbiased.
• Reviewers are expected to make a text-based assessment only, and to avoid statements about the author's / authors' inadequacies.
• In addition to the evaluation criteria, reviewers are expected to detail their negative opinions and state their justifications in the space next to the evaluation form.
• In particular, the reviewer who gives a negative opinion should present the weaknesses of the study and reasons for refusal to the author with his evaluations.
• The editor intervenes in the spelling mistakes in the reviewer reports, the statements that deem the author/authors inadequate, the expressions that contain vulgar or insulting or insulting, and information errors.

Timing
• Reviewers are given 30 days to evaluate a study.
• If the reviewer is unable to evaluate the work within the given period, s/he may request additional time from the Editor or inform the Editor that s/he cannot evaluate the study due to time constraints. Thus, the author's time loss can be prevented and sufficient time is provided for the editor to appoint a new reviewer.