Steps to Evaluate a Manuscript Submitted through the System:

• Log in to DERGIPARK with your ID and password.
  
• Go to the Journal of University Research (Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi - ÜAD) panel under "My Journals."
  
• Open the review panel.
  
• In the "New Invitation" section, click on the title of the assigned manuscript.
  
• On the page that opens, you will have the option to accept or decline the review invitation. To accept the review, click "Accept Review."
  
• After accepting the review, you will see the full manuscript under the "Files" section.
  
• After reviewing the manuscript, please fill out the evaluation form in the Comments section and upload the review file if applicable.
  
• Finally, click the "Submit Review" button on the right side of the page.
  

Peer Review Processes
In ÜAD, manuscripts are sent to at least three reviewers who are experts in the subject area. Reviewers are informed about their responsibilities, the ethical principles of ÜAD, and the review criteria and procedure.

The primary ethical principles and responsibilities that reviewers should pay attention to are as follows:

• Reviewers should only evaluate work in which they have the necessary expertise, can respect confidentiality, and are able to keep the content of the manuscript confidential.
  
• Reviewers must adhere to ÜAD’s ethical principles during the review process once they accept the invitation.
  
• Reviewers invited to review a manuscript are expected to decide whether to accept or decline the invitation within 5 days. If a reviewer does not respond within this period, they will be considered to have declined the invitation, and the editor will assign a new reviewer. Reviewers who accept the invitation are expected to complete the evaluation within 30 days from the date of acceptance. If the evaluation is not completed within this period and the reviewer does not request an extension, a new reviewer may be assigned to the manuscript.
  
• Reviewers are expected to provide comments supported by concrete reasons for the manuscript after completing their review and to fill out the Article Evaluation Form, which includes the following questions:
  

                - Does the article contribute to the literature? (Yes / No)
                - Does the title reflect the content of the article? (Yes / No)
                - Does the abstract summarize the article's main points? (Yes / No)
                - Is the purpose of the article clearly stated? (Yes / No)
                - Are the findings related to the research question or hypothesis of the candidate article? (Yes / No)

The evaluation form also includes notes to the editor and authors. After completing this form, reviewers may select one of the following decisions:

• Major Revision, Minor Revision, Reject, Accept
  

The processing of reviewer reports is as follows:

• If one of the three reviewers provides a positive report and the other two provide negative reports, the manuscript is rejected.
  
• Acceptance of a manuscript requires at least two positive reviewer reports. If two out of three reviewers provide positive opinions, this is sufficient for acceptance.
  
• If one reviewer provides an "Accept" or "Minor Revision" report and another provides a "Major Revision" report, and the editor supports acceptance, the manuscript is returned to the author for revisions and then sent back to the same reviewer. In cases requiring a "Major Revision," the manuscript may be rejected, accepted, or assigned to another reviewer, depending on the reviewer’s opinion.
  
• A reviewer requesting revisions may request a re-evaluation of the manuscript. An additional 15 days is granted to the reviewer for this re-evaluation.
  

Ethical Principles and Conflicts of Interest
To ensure a thorough review of the analyses in the manuscript, reviewers may request the article data from the editor if necessary. The journal editor will contact the author to provide these data to the reviewer. It is essential that reviewers have no conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors, and/or institutions funding the research in the manuscripts they review. If a conflict of interest is anticipated, the reviewer should inform the journal of this situation. In cases of conflicts of interest, the Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is considered. Reviewers may not use the content or data of the manuscripts they review before publication or share it with third parties. Reviewers’ names are kept confidential and are not published in the journal.

Confidentiality and Communication
Reviewers are obliged to maintain confidentiality throughout the review process. Any information related to the review process should not be shared with third parties. Reviewers can communicate with the editor via the DergiPark system if they need more information or wish to report suspected ethical violations. These correspondences are not visible to the authors.