Reviewer Guidelines
Considering the aim of the Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Journal (NEÜHFD) to publish original and important articles, we request reviewers to assist in the evaluation of the articles we receive. Below, you will find information about the article evaluation process, how to become a reviewer, and tips on writing a good review. Additionally, our reviewer terms and conditions, based on COPE Principles, provide further information on how to conduct objective and constructive reviewing. Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Law Journal adopts a double-blind peer review model.

Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected from experts who hold a doctoral degree in the relevant field and have publications. Information about experts from Turkish universities is obtained from the YÖK Academic website, while information about experts from abroad is accessed through Publons.

Reviewer Duties and Responsibilities
1) Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any potential personal biases and take them into account when reviewing an article. Reviewers should clearly express their supportive evaluations in their decisions.
2) Contribution to Editorial Decision: Reviewer assessment helps the editor in making editorial decisions and provides authors with an opportunity to improve their articles. Reviewers who feel inadequately prepared to review an article or believe they cannot complete the review in a timely manner should decline the reviewer invitation.
3) Confidentiality: All articles submitted to the journal for review should be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share their reviews or information about the article with anyone, nor should they directly contact the authors. Information contained in the work should not be used in a reviewer's research without the clear written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
4) Sensitivity to Research and Publication Ethics Violations: Reviewers should be vigilant about possible ethical issues in the article and report them to the editor.
Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not accept the review of an article that may have potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationships with authors or institutions to which the articles are affiliated.
Request for Citation to Reviewer: If a reviewer suggests that an author include citations to the reviewer's (or their associates') work, this should be done for genuine scientific reasons and not for the purpose of increasing the reviewer's citation count or visibility. See also: Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Conducting the Review
Reviewers' evaluations should be objective. During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following points in their evaluations:
• Does the article contain new and significant information?
• Is the abstract clear and effectively summarizes the content of the article?
• Is the methodology clearly and comprehensively described?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
• Are there sufficient references to other relevant studies in the field?
• Is the language quality satisfactory?
• Do the abstract, keywords, and summary accurately reflect the content of the article?

Editorial Guidelines
Selection of Editors
Editors are selected from experts who hold a doctoral degree in the relevant field and have publications that align with the scope of the journal.

Turkey Editors Workshop Group
Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Law Journal supports editors in maintaining communication with other editors, believing it to be beneficial.

Editorial Responsibilities
Coordinating the Peer Review Process
Editors should ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial, and timely. Research articles should be reviewed by at least two external reviewers, and when necessary, the editor should seek additional opinions.

Selection of Reviewers
Editors should select reviewers who have appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for inclusivity and diversity. Editors should follow best practices to avoid selecting biased or fraudulent reviewers.

Protection of Confidentiality
Editors should maintain the confidentiality of all materials submitted to the journal and all communications with authors and reviewers unless otherwise agreed upon. In exceptional circumstances and with consultation with the publisher, an editor may share limited information with editors of other journals when investigating suspected research misconduct. Editors should protect the identities of reviewers. Information obtained during the peer review process should not be used by the editor for personal gain, and information contained in a submitted article should not be used in the editor's research without the author's clear written consent.

Impartiality
Editors should evaluate manuscripts based on their intellectual content, regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic background, citizenship, or political philosophy.

Investigation of Allegations
An editor who finds convincing evidence of ethical violations should contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to facilitate the correction, retraction, or other necessary actions regarding the article.

Conflict of Interest
Editors should not be involved in decisions related to articles authored by themselves or their family members. In such cases, the usual procedures of the journal should be followed. Editors should also adhere to the COPE guidelines regarding the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

Publication Decision
Editors are responsible for determining which articles should be published in the journal based on their evaluation of peer review reports. Editors must adhere to the policies established by the Editorial Board.

Citation Requests to the Journal
Editors should not artificially increase the journal's ranking by requesting citations to articles from the journal. Editors should only request citations for valid scientific reasons, not for any other purpose.

Correction, Retraction, and Expression of Concern
Editors may consider publishing corrections if minor errors that do not affect the findings, interpretations, or conclusions are identified in a published article. In cases where significant errors or violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions are identified, editors should consider retracting the article. If there is evidence of possible research or publication misconduct by the authors, or if there is evidence that the authors' institutions have not adequately investigated the matter, or if a potential investigation appears unfair or inconclusive, editors should consider publishing an expression of concern. The guidelines of COPE should be followed concerning corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern.