Considering that Uludag Journal of Theology aims to publish original and important articles, we ask reviewers to assist us in evaluating the manuscripts we receive.

The following guidelines provide information on the article evaluation process, how to become a reviewer, and recommendations on how to write a good review. In addition, our review requirements and conditions are based on COPE principles that provide further information on how to conduct objective and constructive reviews.

Uludag Journal of Theology has adopted the double-blind peer review model.

Reviewer Selection
The referees are selected by the decision of the editorial board and the field editors among experts who hold a PhD degree in the relevant scientific field and have publications. Information about researchers in our country can be accessed from YÖK Academic website ( https://akademik.yok.gov.tr/AkademikArama/ ) and from the Islamic Research Center (ISAM) database ( http://www.isam.org.tr/ ), and information about foreign experts can be accessed through Publons.

Reviewer Duties and Responsibilities
1. Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias and take it into account when evaluating a manuscript. The reviewer should clearly express their supporting evaluations for their decision.
2. Contribution to Editorial Decision: The reviewer evaluation helps the editor in making editorial decisions and offers the author an opportunity to improve the manuscript. In this regard, a reviewer who feels inadequate to review a manuscript or thinks they cannot complete the review in a short time should not accept the review invitation.
3. Confidentiality: All manuscripts submitted to the journal for review should be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share any information or reviews about the manuscript with anyone, nor should they directly contact the authors. The information contained in the study should not be used by a reviewer in their own research without the author's written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
4. Sensitivity to Research and Publication Ethics Violations: Reviewers should be careful about possible ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
5. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript that may have potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with the authors or institutions to which the manuscripts are affiliated.
6. Citation Request to the Reviewer: If a reviewer suggests that an author should reference the reviewer's (or their partners') work, this should be done for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the reviewer's citation count or visibility of their work. See also COPE Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers ( COPE: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9 )

Reviewing Process
The evaluations of the reviewers should be objective. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts considering the following criteria during the review process:
• Does the manuscript contain new and important information?
• Does the abstract clearly and accurately define the content of the manuscript?
• Is the methodology described in a comprehensive and understandable manner?
• Do the comments and conclusions presented in the manuscript correspond to the findings?
• Are sufficient references made to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality adequate?
• Do the summary/abstract/keywords accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?