The articles in this publication will undergo a confidential and double-blind review, and the authors' and reviewers' names are concealed from each other. First, all articles are evaluated by the editor-in-chief and the editorial board. Articles may be accepted at this stage, but in some cases, articles that do not meet the basic standards - for example, those that are not relevant to the journal’s aims and subject areas- may be rejected without entering the reviewing process to avoid delays for the authors. Articles that are following the content of the publication and have innovations or practical suggestions to advance the aims of the publication are sent to the reviewers. The article approved by the editor and the editorial board will be sent to at least two reviewers and after receiving two similar decisions, the result of the review process is reported to the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief reserves the right to make the final decision on acceptance or rejection. More information about the articles’ review process is provided in the guideline’s flowchart.

Ethical requirements for reviewers

Evaluation and review is a professional activity for journals that provides value to the entire profession. Generally, researchers who submit their articles to the journal are expected to reciprocally accept the journal's invitation to evaluate the articles. Reviewers are also expected to adhere to the following ethical principles when accepting review invitations.

• The journal follows a confidential double-blind review process whereby neither authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identity
• The reviewers must keep the information regarding the article confidential.
• The reviewers should evaluate the quality of the article impartially.
• The reviewers must inform the editor-in-chief of any information that may be a reason for rejecting the publication of an article.
• The reviewers should objectively evaluate the articles only based on their content, originality, importance, and relevance to the journal's subject area.
• The reviewers must report any conflict of interest to the editor-in-chief.
• The reviewers should decline to review the articles that they have fundamental disagreements with their topics and may not be able to conduct an unbiased review.
• The reviewers should decline to review the articles that are not in their area of expertise or that they were somehow involved in its editing.
• If the reviewers feel that the article is technically unqualified or if it is not possible for them to timely review, they should immediately refuse to review the submitted article.

The reviewers decide to accept or reject an article, and they are one of the main elements in the review and evaluation process. All reviewers are requested to review the articles submitted for review in detail and provide their opinions without any bias, which will increase the quality of our journal.

An essential characteristic of any review is that it is useful and constructive, and we ask reviewers to be firm but polite when commenting on authors. Reviewers must provide an objective critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest practical context. The reviewers should make a recommendation to the editor-in-chief about the decision on the article. Your report should contain your detailed answers to the publication's questions on the review form. If you think the article needs revision before its acceptance, please make suggestions on how to improve the article. Similarly, if you feel that the article is not good enough and has no real prospect of improvement enough to be published, you should recommend rejection.

List of reviewers 2022

List of reviewers 2021

List of Our Reviewers