To review a manuscript submitted through the system, please follow the steps below:

1.  Log in to the Article Management System using your username and password.

2. Click on Reviewer from the top menu.

3. On the Reviewer Dashboard, click on the Manuscripts (or Submissions) option.

4. You will now see the title and status of the manuscript assigned to you. Click on the magnifying glass icon under the “View” column on the left side.

5. On the newly opened page, you will find information about the manuscript, including its English and Turkish abstracts. At the bottom of the page, you will be asked whether you accept the review request. To accept, click "I would like to review this submission" in the green-shaded area.

6. Once you accept the review assignment, you will be able to download the manuscript file. You can also access the review form on the same page to evaluate the manuscript.

7. If you need to pause your evaluation, you can click "Save" to store your progress and return to the form later.

8. After completing the entire form and your evaluation, click "Save and Submit" to finalize your review.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers
Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. A reviewer should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with an opportunity to improve the manuscript. In this respect, a reviewer who feels inadequate to review the manuscript or thinks that he will not be able to complete the review in a short time should not accept the invitation to review.
Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review should be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the article with anyone or contact the authors directly. The information contained in the study should not be used in a reviewer's 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.
Alertness to Ethical Issues: Reviewers should be alert to possible ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
Competing Interests: Reviewers should not agree to review an article with potential conflicts of interest arising from their affiliation with the authors or institutions affiliated with the articles.
Citation to the Reviewer: If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates). See. COPE-Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

Writing a Review
The evaluations of the reviewers should be objective. During the refereeing process, the referees are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following points.
2) Does the article contain new and important information?
2) Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article?
3) Is the method comprehensively and clearly defined?
4) Are the comments and conclusions made substantiated by the findings?
5) Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
6) Is the language quality adequate?
7) Abstract/summary/keywords reflect accurately what the paper says?