These guidelines are based on the "COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers" published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For detailed information, please visit the COPE website https://publicationethics.org/ 

TURCOM is committed to adhering to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines regarding the responsibilities of the editorial team, the editorial board, reviewers, and authors during the review process. Articles submitted to TURCOM are first evaluated by the editor for compliance with writing rules, plagiarism checks, and publication policies. Works deemed suitable for review are then sent to two expert reviewers, following a double-blind peer review process. After the peer review, the final decision on the work is made by the editor.

Founded in 1992, the Turkish Review of Communication Studies (TURCOM) continues to provide high-quality academic publishing in media and communication studies, adhering to international standards. The journal, which is indexed in TR Dizin and the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), aims to ensure that submitted works undergo a rigorous and high-quality review process. In this regard, the contributions of expert reviewers are crucial to achieving our publishing goals.

The fundamental principles and recommendations that may clarify the review process for reviewers are listed below:

Timeliness: Reviewers should strive to submit their reports within the specified timeframe. Delays should not be made for personal or arbitrary reasons. If additional time is needed, the journal editor should be contacted.

Conflict of Interest: Manuscripts submitted to the journal are sent to reviewers with the author names and information removed. Reviewers are selected from different institutions to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Despite efforts to anonymize the review process, reviewers may be able to guess the identity of the author. In such cases, the editor should be contacted and the conflict of interest should be reported.

Confidentiality: Manuscripts sent to reviewers are confidential and must not be used by the reviewer in any way, discussed in an academic setting or meeting, reproduced, or published.

Objectivity: Reviewers should be objective and constructive in their evaluations. They should avoid discriminatory statements based on nationality, religion, class, gender, etc. when criticizing the work.

Contribution to Review: Reviewers should not seek contributions from other academics or researchers in the evaluation of the manuscript without the knowledge and permission of the journal editor. If the reviewer believes that another academic/researcher can contribute to the evaluation process of the manuscript, they must clearly state the contribution of that person in the review report and bring it to the attention of the editor.

Reviewer's Declining the Invitation: Reviewers may decline the invitation to review due to conflicts of interest, academic or personal reasons, or if they believe they are not competent to evaluate the manuscript effectively. The decision to decline should be communicated to the editor as soon as possible after receiving the invitation.

Citations to the Reviewer's Work: Reviewers should not request the author of the manuscript they are evaluating to cite their own work for the sole purpose of increasing the number of citations. If the reviewer deems it necessary to cite their own work, they must explain this in detail with academic justifications. While doing so, they should carefully construct their style to prevent the author from guessing the reviewer's identity. Citations to the reviewer's work should not be the primary motivation for accepting the manuscript. The reviewer should evaluate the text objectively, regardless of whether the author cites their own work.

Preparation of Review Reports: Reviewers should not make generalizations about the work in their evaluations. For example, comments that do not provide a detailed analysis of the manuscript, such as "It is a successful article, it can be published" or "It is an unsuccessful article, it cannot be published", should not be sent. The editor reserves the right to reject and disregard such evaluations that do not comply with the journal's publication and evaluation goals. In such cases, the manuscript is sent to another reviewer, which results in a loss of time for the editor and the authors. The reviewer should add detailed explanations to their decisions of acceptance, revision, or rejection whenever possible to ensure that the review process progresses efficiently. If an article is to be accepted, its contribution to the literature, its strengths, and possible areas for improvement should be explained in detail. Detailed comments are also necessary for revision and rejection decisions.

Adding Detailed Comments: A review form is sent to the reviewer through the system during the review process. This form must be filled out and the reasons for the decision on the article must be explained clearly. It would also be appropriate to add comments and corrections to the text and upload them to the system. Such detailed correction requests are extremely important for authors to be able to improve their work in a concrete and detailed manner.

Protection of the Reviewer's Anonymity: In the reviewer evaluation form or on the revised article file, any statements that could lead to the author identifying the reviewer should be avoided and the anonymity of the evaluation should be protected.

Compliance with Journal Goals: TURCOM is an international peer-reviewed journal indexed in TR Dizin and ESCI and aims to publish prestigious publications in the field of communication. It is extremely important to consider the indexes in which our journal is indexed and to exhibit constructive criticism when evaluating works.

Detection of Plagiarism: Manuscripts submitted to our journal are subjected to a similarity check using the intihal.net and iThenticate programs before the reviewer evaluation process. Even if a positive report is received, plagiarism problems that are not visible in the program or that arise during the revision process may come to light. In case of plagiarism detection in the evaluated works, it is extremely important to inform the editor's office.

Thank you for your cooperation.