Authors should:

-          Avoid using any fake information, whether gathered or analyzed data in their submissions

-          Observed scientific honesty. Any use of previous sources, whether published or unpublished should be mentioned in the paper by indicating the source

-          Neither maintain nor manifest any ethnic, cultural, national, sexual, identity, age, linguistic or medical discrimination in the paper, failure of which will lead to the instantaneous rejection of the work

-          Have obtained the agreement of the participants in their research. Likewise, the protection of participants' personal rights as well as their personalization of identity must be carefully considered by the authors

Reviewers should:

General principles

-          Judge only the initial versions of articles related to their professional abilities and to also be able to do them on time

-          Respect the confidentiality of peer review information and do not disclose any original copy information at any stage of the review

-          Do not use the information obtained during review for their own benefit or the benefit of another person or organization, nor use this information to harm or discredit others

-          Report potential inconsistencies with the magazine's interests or, if unsure, correspond with the journal to make sure

-          Not allow their judgment to be influenced by issues such as nationality, religion, political beliefs, gender or other such issues concerning the author

-          Be impartial and constructive in criticism and avoid verbal violence, and offensive and insulting language

-          Have a proper understanding of the reciprocity of the peer review process and adhere to a schedule

-          Avoid forgery of another person's identity during the arbitration process for this is considered to be an abuse of authority and a serious offence

Expectations during the process of peer review

-          Respond within the specified time, especially if they are not able to review

-          Inform if they do not have the professional ability required to review

-          Only agree to arbitration if they are able to do so under an agreed timeline

-          Report any inconsistencies of interests

-          Adhere to the policy of the magazine, in case of inconsistencies in arbitration,

-          Judge the original version that has been judged by other magazines anewfrom the beginning as there may be the possibility of many variations between two different presentations

-          Ensure that their proposals for an alternate arbitrator are well founded and are not caused by personal issues

-          Avoid accepting the judgment of the original version, which they wish to judge only for the purpose of obtaining information in that case, and not in the case of actual judgment

-          Avoid accepting the task to review if they are unable to make an impartial judgment

-          Avoid adjudging if they have played a role in the research in any way

-          Avoid adjudging if they are undertaking similar research to the original, or have submitted it to another journal

Expectations during the review

-          If they encounter a discrepancy during the judging that was not apparent in a previous stage, notify the journal immediately

-          If they are unable to judge all parts of the original version, notify the journal immediately

-          Avoid interfering into others without the permission of journal, including students and researchers under their tutelage.

-          The entire original version is provided and reviews are kept confidential

-          In the case of anonymous two-sided judgments, if they are suspicious of the author's identity, and this causes particular inconsistency, notify the journal

-          Report to the journal any specific irregularities or ethical points about various aspects of the work

-          Do not intentionally prolong a review

-          Ensure that their judgments are based on the nature of the work presented and not influenced by personal, financial or other inconsistencies

-          Do not contact authors without the permission of the journal

Expectations during preparing a report:

-          Be constructive and impartial and provide constructive feedback to authors to improve the original version

-          Deter from making insulting comments and baseless accusations

-          Criticize in detail and use relevant evidence to substantiate their views on general opinions

-          Know about the sensitivities of language-related issues, especially for writers who do not write in their native language

-          Identify the substantial surplus needed to substantiate the claims made in the original

-          Do not write the report in a negative and unfair manner about a particular person

-          Ensure that their comments and suggestions are consistent, and consistently expressed to the journal editor and the original author

-          Avoid reference to the citation of the referee's own work, with the purpose of increasing the citation rate of their article

Expectations after preparing the report

-          The original version is provided and reviews remain confidential

-          They should respond immediately and provide the required information if contacted by the journal about their arbitration

-          Be sure to notify the journal if a relevant matter appears to the referee after the report, which allows for a change in comments and suggestions

-          Read the report prepared by the other judges to increase their understanding of the issues and the decisions made

-          Try to adapt to the requests of journal to modify their report or resubmit the adjudged original