Guidelines for Reviewers
We ask reviewers to help us prioritise the manuscripts that we receive, bearing in mind that Journal of Analytic Divinity aims to publish original and important articles.
Below is information about peer review, advice about how to become a reviewer and how to write a good review, and our reviewer terms and conditions which are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers which also provides further information on how to be objective and constructive in your review. The JAD has fully double-blind peer review for all manuscripts.

Selection of Reviewers
The reviewers are selected from among experts who have a doctorate degree in the field of science related to the paper and have publications. The information of the experts working in Turkish universities can be accessed from the YÖK Academic website, and the information of the experts abroad can be accessed from the Publons.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers
• Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. A reviewer should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
• Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with an opportunity to improve the manuscript. In this respect, a reviewer who feels inadequate to review the manuscript or thinks that he will not be able to complete the review in a short time should not accept the invitation to review.
• Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review should be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the article with anyone or contact the authors directly. The information contained in the study should not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
• Alertness to Ethical Issues: Reviewers should be alert to possible ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
• Competing Interests: Reviewers should not agree to review an article with potential conflicts of interest arising from their affiliation with the authors or institutions affiliated with the articles.
• Citation to the Reviewer: If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).

Writing a review
The evaluations of the reviewers should be objective. During the refereeing process, the referees are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following points.
• Does the article contain new and important information?
• Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article?
• Is the method comprehensively and clearly defined?
• Are the comments and conclusions made substantiated by the findings?
• Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality adequate?
• Abstract/summary/keywords reflect accurately what the paper says?