For Reviewers

Timeliness.When you accept a review invitation, you commit to submitting your report within 21 calendar days. Timely reviews allow authors to receive decisions while their work is still current and protect the overall publishing timeline. If circumstances prevent you from meeting this deadline, please notify the handling editor as early as possible — see “Timeline & extensions” below for the request process.

Confidentiality. All manuscripts submitted to YTU Journals are confidential prior to publication. You must not share, cite, or build upon the unpublished work without explicit written consent from the authors and the editor. This obligation extends beyond the review period and survives regardless of the final decision.

Conflict of interest declaration. Before accepting an invitation, you are responsible for assessing whether a conflict of interest exists between yourself and the authors, their institution, or the work itself. Any doubt should be communicated to the editor immediately. Reviewing a manuscript when an undisclosed conflict exists is a serious breach of research ethics.

Ethical assessment. If your review reveals concerns about plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed authorship disputes, or violations of participant privacy, you are expected to flag them in the confidential comments to the editor. YTU Journals treats such flags seriously and investigates them through a defined ethics review procedure.

Constructive tone.The purpose of peer review is to help authors improve their work, not to gatekeep or demonstrate expertise. Criticism should be specific, evidence-based, and actionable. Personal remarks, dismissive language, and vague generalizations are not appropriate regardless of the reviewer’s overall recommendation. We ask that reviewers write the kind of review they would find useful if they were the author.

YTUP uses a structured Likert 1–5 rubric across five dimensions. A score of 1 represents serious deficiency; 5 represents exceptional quality. Scores inform — but do not mechanically determine — the editorial recommendation. Reviewers should accompany each score with narrative justification.

Every manuscript you receive for review contains original, unpublished research. It may include novel data, proprietary methods, theoretical frameworks, or commercially sensitive findings. Until the work is formally published, the entire content — including the existence of the submission itself — is confidential.

Reviewers may discuss a manuscript with a direct colleague in the same research group, provided they have obtained prior editor approval and ensured the colleague understands the same confidentiality obligations. See the FAQ for co-reviewer procedure.

Reviewers may not share the manuscript with others, cite it in their own work before publication, use unpublished data for competitive advantage, retain copies beyond the review period, or post content from the manuscript on any public platform.

If you realize mid-review that a conflict has arisen — for example, because you recognize an author from the writing style, or because the topic directly overlaps with work you are about to submit — stop the review and contact the handling editor immediately. Honest, early disclosure protects everyone involved.

A conflict of interest exists wherever your judgment of the manuscript could reasonably appear to be influenced by a relationship with the authors, their institution, or the subject matter. Declaration is not an admission of bias — it is the mechanism by which the editorial process maintains its integrity.

What counts as a conflict:

• Co-authorship with any listed author within the past five years
• Current or recent (within two years) employment at the same institution as the corresponding author
• Personal relationships — close friendship, family, or active collaboration — with an author
• Financial interests in the subject matter, technology described, or sponsoring organizations
• Prior knowledge of the manuscript outside the formal review process
• Active competitive rivalry where a negative review would directly benefit your own work

To decline on COI grounds, click “Decline” in the invitation email and select “Conflict of interest” as the reason. You may optionally suggest an alternative reviewer. The editorial team will treat your disclosure confidentially. Declining due to conflict is always the correct decision; accepting under a disclosed conflict requires explicit editor approval and is rarely granted.

The standard review deadline is 21 calendar days from the date you accept the invitation. A reminder email is sent automatically at day 14. A second reminder follows at day 19 if the review remains incomplete.

To request an extension, use the link in your invitation email or reply directly to the handling editor. A brief explanation is helpful but not mandatory. Extensions of up to seven additional days are granted as a matter of course on first request. Longer extensions require editorial discretion and are considered case-by-case.

If you miss the deadline without notice, the editorial system will mark the assignment overdue and the editor may re-invite alternative reviewers. An overdue review that is subsequently submitted will be accepted if the editor has not yet reached a decision, but reviewers with a pattern of missed deadlines may receive fewer invitations in future.

Declining is always better than silence. If at any point you realize you cannot complete the review — even after beginning — please decline immediately so the editor can act. Submissions should not be held waiting for a review that will not come.

Reviewers are often the first to notice integrity concerns that may not be apparent to editors from a manuscript read alone. If your review raises any of the following concerns, please document them in the confidential comments to the editor and, where the platform provides it, use the dedicated ethics flag field:

• Plagiarism or text recycling— passages that appear substantially identical to published work, including the authors’ own prior publications without appropriate citation
• Data fabrication or falsification — results that are internally inconsistent, statistically impossible, or visually manipulated in figures
• Undisclosed authorship disputes — indications that listed authors did not contribute to the work, or that significant contributors have been omitted
• Undisclosed competing interests — evidence of financial, professional, or personal interests that should have been declared by the authors
• Ethical approval concerns — human or animal research that does not appear to have received proper institutional review board approval, or that reports participant details in a way that risks identification

For urgent or serious concerns, you may contact the ethics editor directly at ethics@ytu-journals.edu.tr. All ethics flags are handled with strict confidentiality; your identity as the reporting reviewer is not disclosed to the authors.