The articles that reach the journal are first examined by the journal secretariat in terms of journal writing rules and sent to the "Field Editor" to examine the suitability of the subject and field. The field editor examines the relevant article in terms of the journal's scope, subject and content and decides whether to send it to referees. At this stage, if the field editor's opinion is positive about the inclusion of the study in the evaluation process, the field editor communicates his/her decision about who can be the referees to evaluate the study to the journal editorship. The editor sends the studies that are found to be in compliance with the journal's publication policies to the referees (at least two referees) on the subject. The referees' review of the "Study Evaluation Process for Referees" before evaluating the studies will contribute to the healthy conduct of the process.

The double-blind method is used in the evaluation process of the studies sent to the Kocatepe Journal of Tourism Research, and the identities of the authors and referees are hidden in all processes. In this context, the referee evaluation process for the studies sent to the journal and the points that the referees must take into consideration are presented below.

1. All studies uploaded to Kocatepe Journal of Tourism Research are sent to at least two referees (referees are appointed) electronically through the journal system to be evaluated. The person appointed as a referee makes his/her decision on the study sent to him/her by using the relevant forms available electronically in the journal system and uploads it to the journal system electronically.

2. Referees make their decisions regarding the study they have evaluated by choosing one of three options: "accept", "correct" or "reject". The study, whose referee evaluation has been completed, is uploaded to the journal system by the referees together with the evaluation reports.

3. If the referee requests to see the revised version of the study, the study is sent back to the referee. The referee re-examines the author's revised study and uploads it to the journal system with his/her evaluations.

4. If the referee determines that the study is suitable for publication without further review after the corrections have been made, the study is taken to the final editorial decision stage.

5. In order for the double-blind refereeing practice to be carried out properly, in addition to the "Referee Evaluation Form" in the system, if the referee has made notes/corrections in the working file sent by the author in Word format to be forwarded to the author, the names of the referees must not be included in the explanations section in the said Word file.

6. The referee is responsible for ensuring that the evaluation process is conducted in an impartial and fair manner.

7. A referee who finds the assigned work unrelated to his/her field, feels inadequate to criticize, or is unable to provide a timely critique must withdraw from the review task and communicate this situation to the editor, together with a justification.

8. Since the texts under review are considered confidential documents, they must not be shown to anyone other than those authorized by the editor, and the work must not be discussed. Privileged information and ideas obtained during the refereeing process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.

9. Peer reviews must be conducted objectively, fairly, and in accordance with scientific ethics. No personal criticism must be directed towards the author. Peer reviewers must evaluate works regardless of the origin, gender, or political philosophy of the authors. Peer reviewers must also ensure a fair blind peer review process for the evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

10. Reviewers must also bring to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the work under review and any previously published work of which they are aware.

11. Referees must assist editors in making decisions and must also be able to assist authors in improving texts.

12. When evaluating the studies sent to them, referees must provide opinions on whether artificial intelligence tools were used in the preparation of the relevant study, if so, whether the relevant tools and relevant references were used correctly, whether this issue was stated in the method section of the study, and support the editor in this regard. It is useful to examine the principles developed by various organizations (Elsevier, ICMJE, WAME), especially COPE, on this issue.

13. The above-mentioned referee evaluation criteria also apply to the article evaluation processes to be sent for "special issues" and/or "supplementary issues" to be published in addition to the regular issues of the journal.