Reviewer Guideline

Review of articles by "blind refereeing" for objective and independent review increases the quality of the publication and creates trust. For this reason, double-blind refereeing is applied to all article reviews in our journal. As per journal rules, author(s) and referees cannot communicate directly while the articles are still under review. The evaluations and comments of the referees are carried out through the journal management system. The evaluation forms of the referees and their opinions on the text are sent to the editors by the editor. The reviewers' completion of the evaluation process objectively, independently and ethically is followed up by the editor.

The referees of our journal have the following ethical responsibilities:

• Referees must fulfill their ethical responsibilities during the article review process. 
• Reviewers must agree to review studies related to their field. They should not review articles outside their field of expertise.
• Reviewers must comply with the article review period.
• Reviewers must complete the article review process with impartiality and confidentiality.
• Referees must evaluate articles objectively, regardless of personal characteristics such as gender, religion, political, commercial conflicts, citizenship. These personal characteristics must not affect the decisions of the referees. The review process must be completed objectively. 
• If a referee thinks that they are facing a conflict of interest during the review of an article, they should refuse to evaluate the article and inform the journal editor.
• Reviewers must use a polite/constructive language and style when reviewing an article. They must avoid offensive, insulting, derogatory, slanderous and hostile comments and expressions.  
• The referees can use the content of the studies they have reviewed only after they are published, in accordance with the confidentiality principle. They cannot use any information from rejected studies. 
• Reviewers may suggest citations that will contribute scientifically to the work. However, referees must not make suggestions in order to increase their own citations.
• Reviewers must not access information about the identity of the author(s). If information about the author(s) is accessed or received, the review process must be terminated.
• Reviewers must be aware of personal biases they may have during the review process and take this into account when reviewing an article.
• Reviewers must write the reasons for rejection clearly and in detail in the reviewer report, when rejecting an article.