This guideline has been prepared to ensure that the peer-review process to be carried out within the scope of the International Congress on Aviation Studies, hosted by Balıkesir University between September 17–19, 2026, is conducted in accordance with scientific, transparent, and ethical principles. The guideline covers the rules that reviewers and the editorial team are expected to follow during the evaluation process.

1. Purpose and Scope

• This guideline has been prepared to enhance the academic quality of the papers submitted to our congress and to ensure consistency in the evaluation process.
• The peer-review process aims to assess the scientific contribution, methodological adequacy, and writing quality of the submitted papers.

2. Principles of the Evaluation Process

1. Double-Blind Peer Review
   
   • The identities of both reviewers and authors are kept confidential.
   • This principle ensures that the evaluation process is conducted in an impartial and fair manner.
2. Transparency
   
   • Reviewer feedback is shared with the authors, and revision processes are explained in detail.
   • Final decisions are made based on reviewer reports and the evaluation of the congress editorial team.
3. Ethics and Impartiality
   
   • Reviewers must avoid any personal or institutional conflicts of interest during the evaluation process.
   • Reviewers are required to inform the congress editorial team of any potential conflict of interest related to the papers they evaluate.

3. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

1. Scientific Evaluation
   
   • Reviewers are expected to assess the originality, methodological adequacy, and scientific contribution of the submitted papers.
   • The evaluation should be carried out according to the following criteria:
     
     • Originality and novelty
     • Accuracy and applicability of the method
     • Clarity and presentation of the findings
     • Compatibility of the discussion with the literature
     • Contribution of the results and recommendations
   • The evaluation form to be used by reviewers is provided through the system. Reviewers should conduct their evaluations according to the criteria specified in the form and provide detailed feedback along with scoring for each criterion.
2. Feedback
   
   • Reviewers should present their criticisms and suggestions in a constructive and clear manner.
   • Concrete and detailed explanations should be provided so that authors can clearly understand the recommended revisions.
3. Timely Submission
   
   • Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the period specified by the congress, which is 7 days.
4. Confidentiality
   
   • Reviewers must keep all data and information contained in the submitted papers confidential and must not share them with third parties.

4. Operation of the Evaluation Process

1. Preliminary Evaluation
   
   • Submitted papers are first reviewed by the congress editorial team in terms of format and content. Papers that do not comply with the writing guidelines are not forwarded to the peer-review process.
2. Reviewer Assignment
   
   • Each paper is assigned to at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
   • After receiving the invitation e-mail for evaluation, reviewers must indicate whether they accept or decline the invitation within 7 days.
3. Evaluation Criteria
   
   • Papers are evaluated according to the following criteria:
     
     • Originality
     • Scientific contribution
     • Methodological adequacy
     • Accuracy of findings
     • Writing and language quality
4. Types of Decisions
   
   • The possible reviewer decisions are as follows:
     
     • Accept: The paper is ready for publication.
     • Minor Revision: Minor corrections are required.
     • Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required.
     • Reject: The paper is not suitable for publication.
5. Communication of Reviewer Reports
   
   • Reviewer reports are reviewed by the congress editorial team and then shared with the authors.
   • Papers requiring revision must be corrected and resubmitted within the specified period.

5. Compliance with COPE Principles

All ethical processes in our congress are conducted in accordance with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In this context, authors, reviewers, and editors have the following ethical responsibilities:

Responsibilities of Authors

• Authors are responsible for declaring that the submitted work is original, has not been previously published elsewhere, and is not under evaluation elsewhere.
• The contribution rates of all authors involved in the study must be clearly stated, and individuals who have not contributed to the study must not be included as authors.
• Any conflict of interest related to the study must be clearly disclosed.
• Authors must obtain the necessary ethical approvals for their research and declare that the study complies with ethical standards.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Reviewers must remain impartial throughout the evaluation process and avoid conflicts of interest.
• They must protect the confidentiality of the information provided during the review process and comment only on the scientific content of the paper.
• Reviewers must present their evaluations in a clear, constructive manner and in accordance with the academic standards of the congress.

Responsibilities of Editors

• Editors are responsible for ensuring that the evaluation process is carried out in a transparent and fair manner.
• While making final decisions based on reviewer recommendations, editors must adhere to ethical principles.
• In cases of ethical misconduct, editors must follow the necessary procedures in accordance with COPE flowcharts.

Process Management in Cases of Ethical Misconduct

• In cases where ethical misconduct is suspected, the process will be managed by following the decision flowcharts recommended by COPE.
• Ethical misconduct may include the following:

• Plagiarism, including the partial or complete use of another work without proper citation
• Use of fabricated data
• Misleading authorship, including the addition of individuals who have not contributed to the study
• Failure to disclose conflicts of interest
• If misconduct is detected, the relevant paper will be withdrawn and the author(s) will be informed.

6. Conditions for Participation in the Review Process

1. Expertise: Reviewers must have expertise and experience in the subject area of the paper they are asked to evaluate.
   1. Acceptance of Invitation: Reviewers should accept the invitation only if they have sufficient time and knowledge to conduct the evaluation.
   1. Ethical Principles: Reviewers must fully comply with academic and ethical principles throughout the evaluation process.

7. Support Provided to Reviewers

1. Guidelines and Guidance: A detailed technical guide has been prepared to help reviewers carry out the evaluation process effectively. This guide provides instructions on the use of the system and the evaluation criteria.
2. Certificate of Appreciation: Reviewers will be provided with a certificate of appreciation upon completion of the evaluation process.

8. Contact

For questions regarding the peer-review process, please contact us:

• E-mail: academicianstudies@gmail.com
• Phone: +90 554 877 68 95