All articles submitted to JSDF are evaluated by double-blind peer-review process. Double-blind refereeing means keeping the authors confidential from the referees and the referees from the authors in order to ensure an impartial, objective and independent evaluation process. Articles are sent to the referees from the journal management system for evaluation. The reviewers evaluated the article a are required to fill in the form. The ethical responsibilities and roles of the referees of SJSDF are as follows;
• Reviewers are only required to referee articles related to their field of expertise.
• Reviewersare expected to agree to referee articles that do not have conflicts of interest. When reviewers realize any conflict of interest, they should inform the editor and refuse to referee the relevant article.
• Reviewers should evaluate the articles impartially and objectively.
• Reviewers are required to fill in the Referee Evaluation Form for the articles they evaluate, and they are expected not to mention their names in the forms in order not to harm the double-blind refereeing process. In this form, the referees are required to state their decision on whether the article they are evaluating is publishable or not, and the reasons for their decision.
• The style used by the referees in their suggestions should be polite, respectful and scientific. Referees should avoid offensive, disrespectful and subjective personal comments. When it is determined that the referees make such non-scientific comments, they can be contacted by the editor or the editorial board to review and correct their comments.
• Reviewers are required to complete their evaluations within the time given to them and are expected to comply with the ethical responsibilities set forth herein.
• Reviewers should make the evaluation with impartiality and strict confidentiality. Pursuant to this principle, they should destroy the articles they have reviewed after the evaluation process, must not disclose or utilize manuscript content prior to publication and use them only after they are published. Nationality, gender, religious belief, political belief and commercial concerns should not impair the impartiality of the assessment.
• Reviewers should evaluate the article for which they accepted the evaluation within the time limit.
• Reviewers must clearly identify ethical concerns or misconduct, including plagiarism, duplication, or unethical study designs and adhere strictly to ethical guidelines.