Reviewer Guideline

Studies that comply with the format (article writing rules) are sent to the editor by the secretariat to start the evaluation process.

The Journal Editor, Section Editor, Editorial Board and/or Editorial Board members may decide to RET as a result of the preliminary review of the submitted work without sending it to the referees.

The editor examines the work in terms of "scientific content" and ends the process by rejecting the work that is not original in terms of content.

Studies that are suitable for scientific content are sent to two referees who are experts in their fields (in accordance with the "blind referee" system) for evaluation.

Completes the peer review process; Indicates corrections, comments and deficiencies on the work file or as an explanation.

If the two referees' opinions are not the same; The editor may appoint a new referee (third) or may evaluate the study himself.

Referee evaluations, comments or suggestions are forwarded to the author by the Editor.

After the corrections of the studies for which revision is requested as a result of the referee's opinion are made by the author(s), the study is evaluated by the Editor.

If the referee of the study wants to re-evaluate the study after the author(s) have corrected it, the study is first sent to the relevant referee and then reviewed by the Editor.

When deemed necessary, the Editor may request additional evaluation from the Section Editor or Editorial Board Members.

Journal Editor, Section Editor or Editorial Board members can review a study whose evaluation process has completed and make a "REJECTION" decision.

The editor notifies the author of the final decision through the system.

Studies for which a rejection decision has been made are not taken into the re-evaluation process.

Works accepted for publication are sent to the layout editor.

Works with completed layouts are sent to the author for final control. The author(s) notify the Editor of any minor corrections they see.