We encourage readers to sign up for the publishing notification service for this journal. Use the Register link at the top of the home page for the journal. This registration will result in the reader receiving the Table of Contents by email for each new issue of the journal. This list also allows the journal to claim a certain level of support or readership. See the journal's Privacy Statement, which assures readers that their name and email address will not be used for other purposes.

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your interest in and valuable scientific contribution to the Omnia Scholar International Journal of Health Sciences. Our journal adopts a double-blind peer review process and places great importance on the careful and objective evaluations of our reviewers to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and ethical compliance of submitted manuscripts.

This guideline outlines the essential steps to follow when reviewing the manuscript assigned to you and explains the structure of the evaluation form you are expected to use.

1. Peer Review Process and Ethical Responsibilities

1.1. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

• Confidentiality:
  The manuscript you are reviewing must be treated as a confidential document until it is published. Sharing any information regarding the manuscript content, the identity of the author(s), or the review process with third parties is strictly prohibited.
• Conflict of Interest:
  Please assess whether you have any personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the author(s) of the manuscript. If such a conflict exists, you are required to immediately inform the Editorial Board and withdraw from the review process.

1.2. Review Timeline

• The review period is specified in the invitation e-mail sent to you (generally 3–4 weeks). If you anticipate that you will not be able to complete the review within the given timeframe, please notify the Editorial Board as soon as possible.

2. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Please evaluate the manuscript under the following three main headings:

1. Scientific Content and Originality

1. Originality and Significance:
   Does the study provide new and meaningful insights or perspectives to the field? Do the results contribute to health sciences practice or theory?
2. Literature Review:
   Does the introduction adequately frame the topic and accurately reflect relevant and up-to-date literature? Is the research question clearly defined?
3. Aim/Hypothesis:
   Is the aim or hypothesis of the study clearly stated, measurable, and consistent with the scope of the manuscript?

1. Methodology and Data Analysis

1. Study Design:
   Is the selected research design (e.g., cross-sectional, experimental, qualitative) appropriate and valid for addressing the research question?
2. Sample:
   Are the population, sampling method, and sample size (n) adequate and well justified? Is the data collection process described in sufficient detail to ensure reproducibility?
3. Data Collection Instruments:
   Are the validity and reliability properties of the instruments/scales used (including Turkish adaptations, if applicable) adequately reported?
4. Statistical Analysis:
   Are the statistical methods appropriate for the type of data and research objectives? Are the results presented accurately and clearly?
5. Ethics:
   Are ethics committee approval and informed consent procedures clearly stated?

1. Presentation and Discussion

1. Results:
   Does the Results section present only the findings without interpretation? Are tables and figures clear, accurate, and supportive of the text?
2. Discussion:
   Are the findings discussed in sufficient depth in light of the study objectives and existing literature? Are contradictory findings logically explained?
3. Conclusion and Recommendations:
   Are the conclusions consistent with the findings and aligned with the study objectives? Are the recommendations concrete, feasible, and relevant to both practice and future research?
4. Language and Format:
   Is the manuscript language (Turkish/English) appropriate for academic standards? Has the manuscript adhered to the journal’s Author Guidelines (reference style, headings, formatting, etc.)?

Confidential Comments to the Editor (Required)

• Your Opinion on the Acceptability of the Manuscript:
  (This section will not be shared with the authors.)
• Are there any potential ethical concerns regarding the manuscript?
• Do you have any concerns about the scientific integrity of the manuscript?

Detailed Comments to the Authors (Required)

• Major Revisions:
  Critical changes required in key sections such as methodology, results, or discussion that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
  (Please specify line numbers when providing comments.)
• Minor Revisions:
  Revisions aimed at improving clarity and readability, including language, formatting, or minor issues in data presentation.

Final Recommendation (Please select one)

• Accept:
  The manuscript is acceptable for publication as submitted, apart from minor language corrections.
• Minor Revision:
  The manuscript may be published after the specified minor revisions are completed.
• Major Revision:
  The manuscript should be reconsidered for publication after substantial scientific or methodological issues have been adequately addressed.
• Reject:
  The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to serious scientific or methodological deficiencies.

Reviewer Evaluation Form (Summary)

Please complete the table below by assigning a score to each section of the manuscript (1 = Poor, 5 = Excellent).