Reviewer Guideline

The corresponding author submits the article through the online journal system.

Articles must be prepared according to the journal template.
When uploading an article to the journal, the Copyright Form must be signed and attached as a PDF to the relevant field.

The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system in its publication processes. Each article is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers to ensure scientific impartiality and publication quality.

In this system, although the editor-in-chief and field editors can access author and reviewer information, authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. Thus, the evaluation process focuses solely on the scientific quality of the work. Reviewer selection is made meticulously, taking into account the scope of the article and the author's area of ​​expertise.

The journal adopts the double-blind peer review principle. Author information should not be included in the article text during the initial upload. After the work receives approval for publication, before uploading the final version, the full name, institutional information (TR&ENG), email, and Orcid ID must be written as specified in the template.

The evaluation model applied in our journal forms the cornerstone of our publication policy, based on scientific transparency, impartiality, and academic reliability.

Each submitted manuscript is evaluated by at least three reviewers considered experts in the relevant field.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, contribution to the field, effectiveness of the methodology used, compliance with ethical rules, holistic presentation of findings and results, level of research in relevant sources and literature, and style and language used, reporting with a "Major Revision," "Minor Revision," "Reject," or "Accept" rating.

Manufacturers who receive a "publishable" decision from at least two reviewers are accepted and placed in the most suitable queue for publication.

If two reviewers give a negative evaluation, the manuscript is returned to the author along with the relevant reports. The final decision regarding the publication date is made by the chief editor. Language and spelling checks of accepted manuscripts are carried out by the relevant editors.

Chief Editor; The editor-in-chief actively monitors every step of the article's review process and makes necessary assignments (such as appointing a field editor and associate editor). They review peer review reports and authors' revision requests. Ultimately, they make their final decision based on positive or negative feedback and reasoned reports from at least three different reviewers selected to evaluate the article. These are potential acceptance or rejection decisions.

The decision, along with the reviewer reports, recommendations, and justifications, is communicated to the author via the system.
In this respect, Chief Editor oversees all steps of the article's review process and is responsible for the final decision on the article.