Blind Peer Review Process
For the evaluation of publications, at least three peer reviewers are assigned by the editors based on the content of the works and the expertise of the reviewers. All peer review reports are transmitted anonymously through electronic means. The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed in the evaluation reports and the journal, following the double-blind review method. Upon request, reviewers may request a written document confirming their contribution to the journal. All authors who have published in the journal are considered to have accepted to contribute as reviewers in future issues.
Blind peer review processes are crucial steps directly impacting the quality of academic publications. The evaluation process is managed through the principle of double-blind peer review. Reviewers cannot directly communicate with authors; evaluations and reviewer reports can be transmitted through the journal management system. Double-blind peer review helps editors make decisions in dialogue with authors and provides authors with an opportunity to improve their work.
Decision-Making Processes
Editors and publishers send all submitted works to at least three expert reviewers for evaluation. After the review process is completed, the chief editor decides which works to publish, considering the accuracy of the work, its significance for researchers and readers, the peer review reports, and legal regulations. The chief editor may seek advice from other editors or reviewers when making this decision.
Promptness
A reviewer who receives an invitation to review should inform the editor as soon as possible whether they are available to review the relevant work.
Confidentiality
Works sent to reviewers should be considered as confidential documents for the purpose of evaluation. Works should not be shown to others, and their contents should not be discussed. In necessary cases, with the permission of the Chief Editor, reviewers may seek advice from other colleagues. The Chief Editor can grant this permission only for exceptional situations. The confidentiality rule also covers individuals who decline the duty of reviewing.
Principle of Impartiality
No personal criticism should be directed at authors during the evaluation process. Evaluations should be objective and contribute to the improvement of the works.
Source Attribution
Reviewers are obligated to inform authors of any quotations not cited in the work. Reviewers should pay special attention to unattributed works or quotations that overlap with previously published works. Reviewers should inform editors if they notice any similarity with previously published works or information during the evaluation.
Notification and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should not evaluate works if they have collaborations or connections with any author, company, or institution involved in the evaluation and should inform the editors of the situation. Reviewers should not use unpublished works or parts of works sent for evaluation without the written consent of the authors. Information and ideas obtained during the evaluation should be kept confidential by reviewers and should not be used for their own interests. These rules also apply to individuals who refuse the duty of reviewing.