Reviewer evaluations are conducted in accordance with the journal’s scope and the criteria set out in the review form. Reviews are expected to be clear, well-reasoned, and based on objective and verifiable academic grounds. The peer review process is intended not only to reach a decision but also to improve the academic quality of the manuscript.
To be considered for publication, a manuscript must meet the following core criteria:
• The manuscript must fall within the scope of the journal.
• The research question should be clear and scientifically valid.
• The methodology and data should be appropriate for the study.
• The analysis and findings should be consistent and objective.
• Conclusions should be supported by adequate evidence and reasoning.
• The study should contribute to the literature.
• The manuscript should be written in a clear and academic style.
Reviewers are expected to address the following aspects in their evaluations:
• A brief summary of the main argument of the study
• Appropriateness of the methodology and data
• Consistency of analysis and findings
• Contribution to the literature
• Concrete suggestions for improvement
• Clarity and quality of writing
• Adequacy of references
Reviewers should base their evaluations solely on scientific criteria. The perceived importance or impact of the study should not be considered as a criterion for evaluation.
The title, abstract, and keywords should accurately and comprehensively reflect the content of the manuscript. The English title, abstract, and keywords should be academically accurate and consistent. The abstract should clearly present the aim, methodology, and main findings of the study.
The manuscript should be original and contribute to the relevant academic field. Studies that merely repeat existing knowledge in the literature are not considered suitable. The contribution of the study and its position within the existing literature should be clearly demonstrated.
The manuscript should be written in clear, coherent, and academically appropriate language. Writing and expression issues should not hinder comprehension. The overall structure, conceptual consistency, and presentation should meet academic standards.
The methodology and data used should be appropriate to the research objective. The research design should be clearly presented, and the methodological approach should be scientifically sound and applicable. The use of data and the analytical process should be transparent and understandable.
The findings should be consistent with the methodology, and conclusions should be reached through objective and scientific reasoning. The analysis should be presented in a clear, systematic, and coherent manner.
The conclusion should be consistent with the findings, and the discussion should be properly situated within the relevant literature. The contribution of the study should be clearly articulated in this section.
Tables, figures, and other visual materials should be necessary, relevant, and appropriately used. Their presentation should comply with academic standards.
References should be sufficient, up to date, and directly relevant to the topic. Citations and referencing should follow academic conventions.
Reviewers are expected to base their evaluations on scientific criteria, provide clear and reasoned comments, and offer constructive and improvement-oriented suggestions. Evaluations consisting solely of marked options without justification are not considered sufficient in the editorial process.
At the end of the evaluation, reviewers are expected to provide a recommendation of acceptance, minor revision (no need to see the revised version), minor/major revision (I would like to review the revised version), or rejection. The recommendation should be clearly supported with reasoned evaluation based on the criteria outlined above.