For an article to be published in the journal, it must meet all of the following criteria:

• Report research that falls within the scope of the journal.

• Present a clear and valid research question.

• Be academically robust in terms of methodology and analysis.

• Provide appropriate evidence or justification for its findings.

• Contribute to the existing literature.

• Use clear and standard academic language.

Peer review is a crucial part of the research process. Our goal is to ensure that the review process remains a collaborative effort between authors and reviewers while maintaining the publication of rigorous research. Manuscripts that pass the initial academic evaluation will proceed to formal peer review. The journal follows a double-blind peer review model. Click here for a full explanation of the review process. Reviewers are asked to recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. The most helpful reports provide the necessary information on which a decision can be based. It is often beneficial to present arguments both in favor of and against publication. After evaluating the reviewer reports, the editor will make one of the following decisions: Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection. In cases where reviewers disagree or authors believe their points have been misunderstood, we may seek further guidance from the reviewers. Therefore, we expect reviewers to be willing to provide follow-up recommendations when requested. However, we fully understand that reviewers generally prefer not to engage in prolonged disputes, so we aim to keep additional consultation to the minimum necessary to ensure a fair assessment for the authors. When reviewers agree to assess a manuscript, they are also committing to reviewing subsequent revisions. In some cases, revised manuscripts may require additional input from new reviewers. Editors will not send resubmitted manuscripts for further review if the authors have not made a serious effort to address the reviewers’ critiques. We take reviewer feedback very seriously and expect authors to do the same. If a reviewer opposes publication, we may consult other reviewers to assess whether the critique is excessively stringent. In certain cases, we may assign additional reviewers to resolve disagreements or provide alternative perspectives.

Selecting appropriate reviewers is a critical part of the evaluation process and is the responsibility of our editors. Reviewer selection is based on multiple factors, including expertise, specific recommendations, and prior experience. Invitations to review a manuscript remain confidential. Editors may consider reviewer suggestions provided by authors during submission. The journal does not rely on a predefined "peer reviewer pool" but instead seeks out the most suitable experts in a given field for each manuscript. The primary purpose of the review process is to provide the Editorial Board with the necessary insights to make an informed decision. Additionally, reviews should guide authors on how to strengthen their manuscript to make it suitable for publication. Feedback should be as constructive and instructive as possible.

We ask our reviewers to adhere to the following principles when assessing submitted manuscripts:

• Editors and reviewers must maintain their anonymity;

• Reviews should be conducted objectively;

• Personal criticism of the author should be avoided;

• Reviewers should provide clear, well-supported arguments, including references when necessary, and avoid defamatory or slanderous statements;

• Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest in the "Notes to the Editor" section of the review form;

• Reviewers should decline to assess manuscripts if they believe they have competing, collaborative, or other conflicting relationships with the authors, affiliated companies, or institutions;

• Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the materials provided and should not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work;

• Any reviewer who wishes to transfer a review request to a colleague must first contact the journal.

Any concerns regarding these principles or any aspect of the review process should be directed to the editorial team.

In your review, please provide comments on the following aspects of the article:

Core Arguments or Findings: A general overview of the paper’s main messages, highlighting what you find particularly interesting or noteworthy. This is typically summarized in a short paragraph.

Validity: An assessment of the strength of the research question and findings. If you identify any flaws (logical, analytical, ethical, or otherwise) that may prevent the article from being published, please explain them in detail.

Data and/or Methodology: Your evaluation of the validity of the approach, the quality of the data, and the clarity of data presentation. Reviewers are expected to assess all data, including supplementary materials provided by the authors.

Analytical Approach: Your assessment of the strength of the analytical approach, such as the validity and comprehensiveness of any statistical tests or the logical coherence of the arguments developed in the paper.

Contribution to the Literature: Whether the article makes a meaningful contribution to the field. Our requirement is that a study should report something new, rather than simply reiterate what is already known. If you believe the paper merely restates existing knowledge, please provide evidence. Please base your recommendation on the study’s originality rather than its perceived significance, advancement, or impact. However, you may provide additional comments for the authors regarding these aspects if you wish.

Suggestions for Improvement: Recommendations for revisions or expansions that could strengthen the work and make it suitable for publication in the journal (e.g., additional experiments, data, or discussions). Suggestions should be limited to what can reasonably be addressed in a revision and should exclude changes that would significantly alter the scope of the study. The Editor will review all suggestions and provide additional guidance to the authors as needed.

Clarity and Context: Your assessment of the text’s clarity and accessibility, as well as whether the findings are presented with sufficient context and consideration of previous research. We expect feedback on the clarity and coherence of the narrative and arguments, including any specific language or grammatical issues.

References: Your opinion on whether the article appropriately cites previous literature or if additional studies should be considered. Please only recommend further reading if it is directly relevant to the study.

• Does the paper present a clear and valid research question?

• What are the paper’s main claims? Are they clearly communicated in the abstract and conclusions?

• Does the article contribute to the field?

• Is relevant and up-to-date literature sufficiently covered?

• Is the methodology/technical approach sound? Is sufficient detail provided?

• Even if the claims are not highly significant, are they convincing? If not, what additional evidence is needed?

• Are the claims fully supported by arguments and/or relevant data?

• Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of the existing literature?

• Have the authors adhered to the journal’s policies and expectations regarding research data availability?

• Is the paper clearly written and well-structured?

• Are the arguments and claims reasonable?

• If the paper is not acceptable in its current form, does it show enough promise for the authors to consider resubmission in the future? If so, what changes would make it publishable?

When submitting your review, you will have the opportunity to provide comments for the authors as well as confidential comments for the Editor.

As part of our editorial policies, we do not alter reviewer reports. Comments intended for authors are forwarded as they are, regardless of our own views on the content. In rare cases, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information. We ask reviewers to avoid unnecessary remarks that could cause undue distress. However, authors should recognize that criticism, even if expressed in strong language, is not necessarily unjustified.

We strive to honor authors' requests to exclude specific reviewers. Additionally, we avoid assigning reviewers who have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors, have previously provided feedback on the manuscript draft, are in direct competition to publish similar findings, have had prior disputes with the authors, or have a financial interest in the outcome. Since it is impossible for the editorial team to be aware of all potential biases, we ask reviewers to disclose any factors that may affect their objectivity and to decline review invitations if they feel they cannot be impartial.

That said, conflicts of interest are not always clear-cut, and the conditions listed above do not automatically invalidate a review. In fact, the most qualified reviewers are often those closest to the field, and skepticism toward a particular claim does not mean a reviewer cannot be persuaded by new evidence. Editors take these factors into account when evaluating reviewer reports.

Reviewers who have already assessed a manuscript for another journal may feel it is unfair to be asked to review it again. However, in our view, the fact that two journals independently identified the same individual as a qualified reviewer does not diminish the validity of their opinion.

Journal editors are responsible for upholding high editorial standards throughout the review process. If the journal detects any evidence of misconduct that compromises the integrity of the peer review process, appropriate action will be taken.

Reviewers should submit their feedback via the online submission system on the DergiPark platform by following the link provided in the original invitation email. For assistance with the system, please contact the editorial office.