Below is the article review process, advice on how to become a reviewer and how to write a good review. Also included are our terms and conditions for reviewing, based on the COPE Principles, which provide more information on how to conduct an objective and constructive review.
Our journal adopts a double blind reviewing model.

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

Duties and Responsibilities of Referees
1) Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias and take this into account when reviewing an article. The reviewer should clearly articulate the considerations that support their 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 manuscript. In this respect, a reviewer who feels inadequate in reviewing an article or who feels that he/she cannot complete the review in a short time should not accept the invitation to review.
3) Confidentiality: All manuscripts received by the journal for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or communicate directly with the authors. Information contained in the manuscript should 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 should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
4) Sensitivity to the Ethical Conduct of Research and Publication: Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
5) Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript with potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationship with the authors or the institutions with which the manuscript is affiliated.
6) Referee Citation Request: If a referee suggests that an author include citations to the referee's (or their collaborators') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the number of citations or the visibility of the referee's work. See also Code of Ethics for Reviewers

Conducting a Review
Referees' evaluations should be objective. During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider 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 methodology described in a coherent and understandable way?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
• Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality adequate?
• Do the abstract/abstract/keywords/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?