Guide to Reviewers
Our journal only publishes original and high-quality articles, and we ask that reviewers evaluate the quality of the manuscript submitted to our journal accordingly. The peer-review process for our journal is double-blind, and we provide information on how to become a reviewer, how to write a good review, and our reviewer terms and conditions. These guidelines are based on the guidelines provided by COPE, a reputable organization that encourages objective and constructive reviews.

Selecting Reviewers
When selecting reviewers for an article, we choose experts who hold a Ph.D. in the relevant field of science and have published related work. To find these experts, we refer to the YÖK Academic website for information on Turkish university professionals, and Publons for information on experts abroad.

Duties and Responsibilities of the Reviewer
1. Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal biases that they may have and take them into account when reviewing a paper. Reviewers should express their views clearly and provide supporting arguments.
2. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions. Through the editorial communications with the author, it may also help the author to improve the paper. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline to participate in the review process.
3. Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
4. Alertness to Ethical Issues: A reviewer must be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring them to the attention of the editor.
5. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not accept to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper.
6. Demand of Citation: If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewers’ (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates). Also, see Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers.

Managing Your Review
When conducting reviews, it is important to maintain objectivity. To achieve this, consider the following questions while reviewing an article:
● Is the article innovative and does it contribute to the existing body of knowledge?
● Does the abstract accurately reflect the content of the article?
● Does the author provide a comprehensive and accurate explanation of the method used?
● Are the claims and comments made in the article supported by the results?
● Does the article cite relevant research to support the claims?
● Is the language used of a good quality and is it easy to understand?
● Do the abstract and keywords accurately reflect the content of the article and are they up to date?

Guide to Editors
Selecting Editors
Editors are chosen among experts who have a Ph.D. degree and have publications regarding the scope of the journal.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
1. Peer review: The editor must ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and completed in a timely manner. Research articles should be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and in case of necessity, the editor should seek additional opinions.
2. Selecting Reviewers: The editor must select reviewers who have appropriate expertise in the relevant field, considering the need for inclusive and diverse representation. The editor should follow best practices to avoid selecting fraudulent peer reviewers.
3. Confidentiality: The editor must protect the confidentiality of all materials 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, institutions, and other organizations investigating cases of research misconduct where it is deemed necessary to investigate suspected ethical breaches. The editor must protect reviewers' identities. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
4. Fair Play: The editor should evaluate manuscripts based on their intellectual content without any discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
5. Vigilance: If the editor is presented with convincing evidence of misconduct, it is their responsibility to coordinate with the publisher and/or society to arrange the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, or other correction to the record, as may be relevant.
6. Conflict of Interest: The editor must not be involved in decisions about papers that they have written themselves, or have been written by family members or colleagues, or that relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Further, any such submission must be subject to all the journal's usual procedures. The editor shall apply COPE guidelines relating to the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.
7. Publication Decisions: The editor is solely responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, always considering the reviewers' reports.
8. Journal Metrics: The editor must not attempt to influence the journal's ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. In particular, the editor shall not require that references to that (or any other) journal's articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons, and authors should not be required to include references to the editor's own articles or products and services in which the editor has an interest.
9. Corrigendum, Retraction, Expression of Concern: Journal editors may consider issuing a corrigendum if a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error). Editors may consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either because of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication/falsification) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error). Journal editors may consider issuing an expression of concern if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors, or they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive, or an investigation is underway, but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time. The editor must follow COPE guidelines in dealing with corrigendum, retraction, and expression of concern.