1. Editorial Review and Peer Review Process

Articles submitted to the Journal of Information Technology and Communication are subject to a double-blind peer review process. The process consists of the following stages:

1.1. Preliminary Evaluation: Articles are first evaluated by the editor-in-chief/editor for compliance with writing rules, plagiarism rate (checked with tools such as Plagiarism.net, Turnitin, etc.), and publication policies. Works that do not meet these criteria are returned to the author with constructive feedback and justification.

1.2. Field Editor Assignment: If the editor-in-chief/editor believes the article has potential, they assign a Field Editor to manage the process.

1.3. Reviewer Selection and Invitation: The Field Editor identifies potential reviewers based on the article's area of ​​expertise. Invitations are sent to at least two reviewers from different institutions who do not have a conflict of interest.

1.4. Double-Blind Review: Reviewers are sent files with author identification information, document characteristics, and personal information hidden. Reviewers are also expected to refrain from including personal information in the files they upload.

1.5. Final Decision: Based on the reviewer evaluations and the Field Editor's recommendation, a final decision (acceptance, revision, or rejection) will be made regarding the article. All decisions will be communicated to the author along with the reasons. If the reviewer reports are found to be insufficient or unfair, the Editor may appoint additional reviewers.

Basic Principles and Responsibilities for Reviewers

1. Before Accepting a Reviewer Invitation
• Expertise and Objectivity: Only accept the invitation if you have sufficient expertise in the scope and methodology of the article and can make an unbiased evaluation. • Conflict of Interest: Immediately report any personal, financial, intellectual, or professional (working in the same institution, close collaboration, etc.) conflict of interest that may prevent you from evaluating the article to the editor. As a general principle, reviewers should not be from the same institution as the authors. If you suspect the identity of an author, contact the editor. • Timely Response and Commitment: Respond to invitations within a reasonable time. If you accept the evaluation, commit to submitting your report within the specified time. If you are unable to conduct the evaluation, communicate your refusal as soon as possible.

2. During the Evaluation Process
• Confidentiality: The peer review process is confidential. Do not share, use, or reproduce the content of the article with third parties without the authors' permission, either during or after the evaluation process. • Use of Artificial Intelligence: The main elements of the evaluation process (content, methodology, evaluation of academic contribution) are your responsibility and cannot be delegated to artificial intelligence tools. Reviewers play a vital role in scientific evaluation. Reviewers guide editors with their opinions and suggestions in their areas of expertise, ensuring that published articles are scientifically valid and reliable. Editors select reviewers because they possess in-depth knowledge of the relevant research topic or methodology. Reviewers are responsible for the accuracy of the opinions they express in their reports. Despite promising developments in information technology, generative artificial intelligence tools have significant flaws. These tools may lack up-to-date information on the research topic and may provide meaningless, biased, or completely false information. Furthermore, article texts may contain sensitive, private, or proprietary information. This information should not be shared outside the peer review process. Despite this journal policy, if reviewers have used AI tools in their reports, they must clearly state this. Moreover, since some AI tools are known to store the uploaded content, this would also violate the principle of not sharing it with third parties. • Seeking Assistance: If you deem it appropriate to include another researcher in the evaluation, you must first obtain explicit written permission from the journal and provide the names of the contributors. Alternatively, you can submit relevant researchers as reviewer recommendations to the editorial office.

3. Preparing the Peer Review Report
• Being Constructive, Objective, and Detailed: Your report should be written in an objective, professional, and constructive language. Avoid general statements such as "successful/unsuccessful." Support your criticisms with concrete arguments, quotations, and page/line numbers.
• Detailed Commentary and Justification: Please explain your acceptance, revision, or rejection proposal in detail, using academic justification. Notes and correction suggestions added to the text are extremely valuable to the authors; please upload such a file to the system. • Citation Ethics: Do not request to include your own work in the bibliography solely to increase your citation count without a valid academic reason. Your citation suggestions must be based on valid academic grounds and avoid statements that could lead the author to guess your identity. • Maintain Anonymity: Do not use any statements in your evaluation form or comments on the text that could reveal your identity.

4. Post-Review
• Review of Revisions: If possible, please agree to review a revised version of an article you previously reviewed.
• Maintaining Confidentiality: Keep the details of the article confidential even after the review process is complete.
• Openness to Communication: Respond promptly and clearly to any questions the editorial board may have regarding your review.

Thank you for your valuable contribution and effort to the Journal of Information Technology and Communication, playing a key role in the advancement of scientific knowledge.

This guide has been compiled from the “COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers” ​​document published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For details, see the source: COPE Council. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9