The double-blind review process adopted by AUJEF directly affects publication quality. This process enables the editors to ensure confidentiality through objective and independent review. Through the double-blind review process, the reviewers do not contact the authors directly; the reviews and comments are conveyed through the journal management system. In this process, the reviewer views the evaluation forms, and the editor sends the full text to the author(s). Therefore, the reviewers assessing the manuscripts sent to AUJEF are expected to bear the following ethical responsibilities:

Reviewers must

• only accept those manuscripts produced in their subject area.

• review in an unbiased and confidential manner.

• if they think there is a conflict of interest between them and the manuscript's author (s), inform the journal editor as early as possible.

• after reviewing, destroy the manuscripts they have reviewed following the principle of confidentiality.

• A reviewer can only use the published version of the manuscripts she/he has reviewed beforehand.

• review the manuscript objectively and only in terms of its content and ensure that any issues like nationality, gender, religious and political beliefs, and economic apprehension do not influence the review process.

• review the manuscript in a constructive and kind tone, and avoid making personal comments, including hostility, slander, and insult.

• review the manuscript they have agreed to review on time and following the above ethical rules.

The Selection of the Reviewers

• Various factors influence the selection process of a reviewer to assess a manuscript sent to AUJEF. The experience and expertise of the reviewer, the relevance of her/his study area, the collective experience of the Editor, and the reviewer in previous reviewing processes are some of those factors determining reviewer selection.

• If the authors asked the Editor not to send their manuscript to certain reviewers due to a conflict of interest, the Editor may not appoint those persons as reviewers.

• The list of reviewers is continuously revised and updated in each published issue.

• The reviewers are expected to either accept or decline the invitation to review sent by the Editor or one of the Field Editors of the AUJEF within seven days. After accepting a review invitation, the reviewers are supposed to complete their review process and upload the relevant files to AUJEF’s journal management system within 20 days.

• If they think that they would not review the manuscript fairly because of the conflict of interest, they have to inform the Editor that they would not be able to review the given manuscript.

• The reviewers should read the invitation letter/e-mail sent by the Editor carefully as the Editor may ask a special favor from the reviewer, such as asking the reviewer to review only the methods section of the manuscript.

• If the reviewers have received help from other persons, they should inform the Editor and give the names of those helping them. The Editorial Board of AUJEF believes publication ethics requires including the names of those contributing people in the list of reviewers.

Reporting of the Reviews

• It is expected that the review reports should focus on these issues;

• Whether the manuscript genuinely contributes to the field of study?

• Whether the manuscript scientifically up to date?

• The review reports should be written critically and objectively.

• The reviewers are expected to focus on the text they assess and to avoid referring to the inabilities or inadequacies of the author(s).

• The reviewers are expected not only to fill in the manuscript evaluation form by putting √ to appropriate boxes but also to write down the inadequacies, deficiencies, problems, and negative aspects they have detected in the assigned manuscript as well as justify their statements in detail through highlighting the examples from the manuscript itself.

• The Editor and the relevant Field Editor have the right to intervene and change the reviewers’ reports if they see that these reports include typing errors; rude, improper or insulting expressions, or statements referring to the author(s) as inadequate or inefficient.

• Due to the conflict of interest, the authors may ask the Editor not to assign certain people as reviewers.

• Besides;

• Persons with whom the author(s) has/have shared publication(s) previously,

• Persons who helped the author(s) in reading drafts of the given manuscript,

• Persons who experienced problems with the author(s) beforehand,

• Persons who may financially benefit from the publication of the given manuscript,

• Persons working in the same institution (departments) with the author(s)

would not be selected as reviewers, if there is another choice.

• Because the Editor may not be aware of all the above-given situations, the reviewers are expected to inform the Editor, if there is a problem preventing them from doing a fair review.

Publication Policy and Other Ethical Issues

• Even though the Editor tries hard to specify ethical issues and other problems breaching the publication policy of AUJEF concerning a manuscript in process, she/he may not be able to be aware of everything. Hence, the reviewers must inform the Editor if they encounter any problems.

• The authors of those manuscripts/papers reporting the research results conducted with the involvement of human participants or including data obtained directly or indirectly from human beings are supposed to provide an Ethical Committee Approval obtained from their institution. The date and document number of the Ethical Committee Approval must be stated in the manuscript.

• The authors are also expected to remark that they followed the research and conduct and publication ethics rules.

• While drafting manuscripts based on their theses or dissertations, the authors are expected to report the entire thesis or dissertation not slicing it or partly reporting the research and data included.

• The authors should also state the ratio of each researcher's contribution, acknowledgements to funders, and the statement of the conflict of interest at the end of the manuscript.

• The final version of the papers accepted for publication is only sent to those reviewers who previously stated that they would like to see the manuscript again.

• A reviewer may see that the manuscript she/he reviewed does not reflect their critiques and viewpoints provided within the reviewing processes. Other reviewers may have provided different perspectives, and the Editor considered those perspectives. In this kind of situation, other reviewers' reports might be sent.

• In consideration of the review reports, the Editor may decide to follow one of the ways given below:

• May accept the manuscript for publication with the requirement of partly/extensive revision,

• May commence another round of reviewing and ask the authors to revise the manuscript following the reviewers’ reports,

• May decline the manuscript.

• The reviewers have a right to state in their reports that the manuscript deserves acceptance for publication or rejection. It is the Editor's to decide whether the manuscript is to be published or declined in consideration with the power and the justification of the arguments provided by the reviewers and authors.