Blind Peer-Review System and the Evaluation Process

Blind Peer-Review System and the Evaluation Process


At least two referees are appointed by the editor(s) according to the content of the studies and the expertise of the referees for the review of the publications. All referee evaluation reports are sent electronically, anonymously. The names of the referees who make the assessment are not mentioned in the reports and the journal due to the double blind referee method. Upon request, a written document stating that the referee has contributed to the journal can be given to the referees. All authors who have published in the journal are deemed to have accepted to contribute to the journal as a referee in future issues.


Blind peer review processes directly affect the quality of academic publications. The evaluation process is carried out on the principle of double-blind refereeing. Referees cannot contact the authors directly, evaluation and referee reports are submitted through the journal management system. In this process, evaluation forms and referee reports are sent to the author(s) through the editor. Double-blind refereeing helps editors make decisions in dialogue with authors. At the same time, authors also have the opportunity to improve their work by obtaining important information about their work.


Decision Making Processes

Editors and publisher send all submitted work to at least two referees who are experts in their fields for evaluation. After the completion of the review process, the editor-in-chief decides which works to be published, taking into account the accuracy of the study, its importance for researchers and readers, referee reports and legal regulations such as insult, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief may take advice from other editors or referees while making this decision.



A referee who is invited to make a referee evaluation should inform the editor as soon as possible whether they can referee for the relevant work.



Studies sent to referees for evaluation should be considered confidential. Studies should not be shown to others and their content should not be discussed. When necessary, referees may seek advice from other colleagues, with the permission of the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief may grant this permission only in exceptional circumstances. The confidentiality rule includes people who refuse to referee.


The Principle of Objectivity

No personal criticism should be made towards the authors during the evaluation process. Evaluations should be made objectively and in a way that contributes to the development of the studies.


Citing a Source

The referees are obliged to notify the authors of any citations that are not cited in the study. Referees should pay particular attention to works that are not cited in the field, or citations that overlap with similar works. Referees should inform editors if publications that are similar to any previously published work or information are noticed.


Notifying and Conflicts of Interest

Referees should not agree to review and inform editors of the situation if they have any collaborative connections with any author, company or institution they have been charged with reviewing their work.

Referees cannot use unpublished works or parts of the works submitted for evaluation in their own studies without the written consent of the author(s). Information and ideas obtained during evaluation should be kept confidential by the referees and not used for their own benefit. These rules also bind those who do not accept the role of referee.