Referee Guide
Given that the International Journal of Philology Bengu aims to publish original and important articles, we ask reviewers to help us evaluate the article submissions we receive.
Below are some tips on the article review process, how to become a reviewer and how to write a good review. Also included are our terms and conditions for reviewing, based on the COPE Principles, which provide more information on how to conduct an objective and constructive review.
The International Journal of Philology Bengu adopts a double blind reviewing model.

Selection of Reviewers
Referees are selected from among experts who hold a PhD degree and have publications in the field of science to which the article relates. The information of experts from Turkish universities can be accessed from YÖK Academic website and the information of experts from abroad can be accessed from Publons.

Duties and Responsibilities of Referees
1) Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias and take this into account when reviewing an article. The reviewer should clearly articulate the considerations that support their decision.
2) Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with the opportunity to improve the manuscript. In this respect, a referee who feels inadequate in reviewing an article or who feels that he/she cannot complete the review in a short period of time should not accept the referee invitation.
3) Confidentiality: All manuscripts received by the journal for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or communicate directly with the authors. Information contained in the manuscript should not be used by a reviewer in his/her 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.
4) Sensitivity to Violations of Research and Publication Ethics: Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
5) Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript with potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationship with the authors or the institutions with which the manuscript is affiliated.
6) Referee Citation Request: If a referee suggests that an author include citations to the referee's (or their collaborators') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the number of citations or the visibility of the referee's work. See also Code of Ethics for Reviewers

Conducting a Review
Referees' evaluations should be objective. During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following points.
• Does the article contain new and important information?
• Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
• Is the methodology described in a coherent and understandable way?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
• Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality adequate?
• Do the abstract/abstract/keywords/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

Selection of Editors
Editors are selected from among experts with a PhD degree and publications in accordance with the scope of the journal.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
Coordinate the Referee Process
The editor should ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial and timely. Research articles should be reviewed by at least two external reviewers, and the editor should seek additional feedback when necessary.

Identification of Reviewers
The Editor will select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation. The Editor will follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent reviewers.

Protecting Confidentiality
The editor must maintain the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the authors and reviewers concerned. In exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where the editor deems it necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct. The editor must protect the identity of reviewers. Information contained in a submitted manuscript should not be used in the editor's own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained during the refereeing process should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.

Neutrality
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.

Investigation of Allegations
An editor who finds convincing evidence of ethical violations should contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to have the manuscript corrected, retracted, or otherwise amended.

Conflict of Interest
The editor should not be involved in decisions about manuscripts written by him/herself or by family members. Furthermore, such a paper should be subject to all the usual procedures of the journal. The editor should follow the COPE guidelines on disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

Publication Decision
The Editor is responsible for reviewing the referee reports and deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The editor must comply with the policies set by the Editorial Board.

Request for Citation to the Journal
The editor should not attempt to influence the ranking of the journal by artificially increasing any journal metric. The editor will not request citation of articles from his/her journal or any other journal, except for scientific reasons.

Correction, Withdrawal, Publication of an Expression of Concern
Editors may consider publishing a correction if minor errors are identified in the published article that do not affect the findings, interpretations and conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the manuscript if there are major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. Editors should consider issuing a statement of concern if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and that the authors' institutions have not investigated the incident, or if the possible investigation seems unfair or inconclusive, if there is a possibility of research or publication misconduct by the authors. COPE guidelines are followed regarding correction, retraction or expression of concern.