Peer-review Process

IBAD Journal of Social Sciences follows a Double-Blind Peer Review Model as its article evaluation policy. This model is a widely used peer review method in academic publishing, where both the authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed from each other. The purpose of this process is to ensure a more impartial and fair evaluation. The key features of the model are:
1.Anonymity
- The identity of the reviewers is kept anonymous from the authors, ensuring that authors do not know who is evaluating their work.
- The identity of the authors is also hidden from the reviewers, allowing the reviewers to assess the paper without being influenced by the author’s academic title, institution, or previous works.
2. Advantages
- Impartiality: Reviewers focus on the scientific content of the work, independent of the authors’ identities.
- Reduced Bias: The personal or institutional background of the authors does not influence the evaluation process.
- Fairness: Provides an equal evaluation environment, especially for younger or lesser-known researchers.
Therefore, the Double-Blind Peer Review Model is an important step toward enhancing the ethical and quality standards of academic publishing.

Evaluation Process and Timeline
Summary
The peer-review process of IBAD Journal of Social Sciences consists of two main stages: preliminary review and editorial review. In the preliminary review, the candidate manuscript is examined by the editorial office in terms of formatting and plagiarism similarity rate. In the editorial review, the editor-in-chief or an assigned editor evaluates the candidate manuscript for its compliance with the journal's publication principles, ethical standards, and its alignment with the journal's aims and scope. If deemed suitable for peer review, the subject editor appointed by the editor-in-chief assigns at least two reviewers to the manuscript. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the criteria outlined in the journal's peer-review report (see Reviewer Report Sample). If one of the reviewers provides a negative report, the manuscript is sent to an additional reviewer(s). The article must receive positive reports from at least two reviewers to be published. Accepted manuscripts are forwarded to the language editor, followed by typesetting and layout. The manuscript is then sent to the author for final review and subsequently undergoes a final read-through by the editor-in-chief or an assigned editor before publication.

Detailed Process
 Preliminary Review
The candidate article is assessed for its compliance with formatting and plagiarism similarity thresholds during the preliminary review phase. The secretariat reviews the similarity report obtained using iThenticate, Turnitin, or intihal.net software. The similarity report should be under 25% (30% in special cases). Articles with high similarity reports or deemed inappropriate in terms of formatting are returned to the author. This review is completed within a maximum of 15 days.
Editorial Review
If the candidate article passes the preliminary review, it is reviewed by the chief editor or an appointed editor for compliance with journal publishing principles, ethical standards, and the journal's aims and scope. Articles that do not comply with the journal's policies are returned to the author. This review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. If deemed appropriate, the peer review process for the candidate article begins. The following steps are followed in the peer review process:
1. The candidate articles are sent for evaluation to at least two reviewers known for their work in the relevant field. Reviewers are asked to report any conflicts of interest regarding the article they are reviewing. Reviewers are requested to evaluate the article according to the principles outlined in the journal's review report (See: Sample Review Report). Reviewers are given up to 30 days to complete their evaluation. However, additional time may be granted with the approval of the editorial board if requested by the reviewers. Reviewers may also submit their reports earlier. If reviewers do not submit their reports within the allocated time or withdraw, new reviewers may be assigned.
2. Reviewer reports are reviewed, and a decision on acceptance, rejection, or revision is made. The decision is communicated to the author. If the article is accepted, it is prepared for publication. If rejected, it is returned to the author. If a revision is requested, the reviewer reports are sent to the author. The author is asked to make revisions based on the reviewers' and editorial board's suggestions, highlighting changes and adding explanations in the document for the reviewers and editorial board to see, and/or providing a separate document detailing responses to the reviewers. This process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.
3. The authors of articles requiring revision make the necessary changes, considering all reviewer reports, including those from reviewers who suggested rejection, and send the revised manuscript with the required explanations or additional files. (See: Sample Revision File and Sample Response to Reviewer File). The maximum revision period for the author is 30 days. Additional time may be granted with the approval of the editorial board upon the request of the corresponding author. However, the author may submit the revision before the deadline.
4. It is checked whether the authors have made the required revisions. The revision file and other relevant documents are sent to all the reviewers who made the revision decision, or at least to two appropriate reviewers, for them to prepare their final reports. This process is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The reviewer has up to 30 days to prepare the final report.
The reviewer who made the rejection decision will not receive the author's revision file. If reviewers who requested revision do not provide their final decision regarding acceptance or rejection in subsequent rounds, or if the editorial board evaluates that the article is not mature enough in terms of content and quality, the subject editor may assign new reviewers to the article.
The evaluation process may repeat several times until a final decision of acceptance or rejection is made. The final decision regarding whether the article will be published is determined by the Editorial Board and communicated to the author. If accepted, the article is prepared for publication. If rejected, it is returned to the author.

Preparation for Publication
For a paper to be published, it must receive approval from at least two reviewers. However, the acceptance of a paper by two reviewers does not guarantee its publication. The decisive factor in determining whether a paper will be published is the editorial board's assessment that the paper has been sufficiently reviewed by independent reviewers in terms of both quality and quantity, and that the author has made the necessary revisions accordingly (see Figure 1). After the article is accepted, it is reviewed by the Language Editors. The language editor's review process takes a maximum of 15 days. Necessary corrections are made during this stage. Subsequently, the article undergoes typesetting and layout adjustments to be prepared for publication and is sent back to the author for final review and approval. This process is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The final version of the article, as submitted by the author, is reviewed one last time by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Editor, and then it is finalized for publication. This final stage is also completed within a maximum of 15 days.
For manuscripts submitted to the IBAD Journal of Social Sciences, authors take into account the critiques and suggestions of the reviewers and Editorial Board. If there are any disagreements, authors have the right to object with justifications. Reviewer reports are stored digitally in the Dergipark system. See Repository Policy

Evaluation Timeline
The peer review process for IBAD Journal of Social Sciences generally follows the timeline below:
- Preliminary Review: 15 days (max.)
- Editorial Board processing time (for each stage): 15 days (max.)
- Peer review time (for each stage): 30 days (An extension may be granted at the request of the reviewer, subject to the approval of the Editorial Board).
- Author revision time (for each stage): 30 days (An extension may be granted at the request of the corresponding author, subject to the approval of the Editorial Board).

Under normal circumstances, the entire review process for a manuscript is expected to be completed between 40 and 60 days. However, the review process may take longer due to reasons such as delays in responses from reviewers, the need for reassignment of reviewers, or it may be shortened if reviewers submit reports before the final deadline or if authors complete required revisions promptly. 

Number and Procedure for Reviewers: At least two independent external reviewers are required.
Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Reviewer Interaction: Reviewers can only communicate with editors.
Review Time: 40-60 days
Plagiarism Check: Conducted using tools like intihal.net, iThenticate, Turnitin, etc.
Submission Period: Manuscript submissions are open year-round.

Data Submission to National and International Indexes
If the published issue is not automatically indexed, the metadata of the article will be sent by the secretariat to the relevant indexed databases within 60 days.

Before submitting a manuscript, authors may encounter login issues. Manuscripts cannot be submitted without logging in. Please confirm whether you are logged in. If you face issues with the system, try again using different browsers like Explorer, Chrome, etc. For technical problems (software-related), please contact with dergiparkdestek@tubitak.gov.tr. For suggestions or feedback, contact with dergipark@ulakbim.gov.tr. For contacting the journal editor, send email to ibadjournaleditor@gmail.com. To view a video tutorial for submitting articles through Dergipark, click here.

By submitting a manuscript to IBAD Journal of Social Sciences, authors accept the journal's peer review conditions and process. 

Figure 1.
33065

Definitions:
Editorial Board: Consists of the Editor-in-Chief, Editor, Assistant Editors, Ethics Editor, Statistical Editor, Language Editors, Field Editors, and other editors. It manages the journal's publication and peer-review processes in accordance with the journal's publication and evaluation policies set by the Publication Board.
Editor-in-Chief: Serves as the head of the Editorial Board. Responsible for managing the journal as defined by the Publication Board.
Assistant Editor: Assists the Editor-in-Chief/Editor. Supports all tasks and processes related to the management of the journal as determined by the Publication Board.
Field Editor: Composed of experts in specific fields. Oversees peer-review and publication processes for topics within their area of expertise upon request from the Editor-in-Chief.
Publication Board: Composed of experts in their respective fields. Establishes the journal's publication and evaluation policies and shares them with the Editorial Board.
Advisory Board: Consists of experts in their respective fields. Provides guidance to the Editorial and Publication Boards upon request by sharing their knowledge and experience.
Ethics Editor: A specialist in ethics. Reviews articles for ethical compliance.
Statistical Editor: An expert in statistics. Examines the statistical data in articles for accuracy and appropriateness.
Language Editor: A specialist in language and literature. Reviews articles for linguistic quality and clarity.
Secretariat: Conducts all correspondence for the journal centrally in accordance with decisions made by the Editorial Board. Handles correspondence with editors, reviewers, authors, and readers. Also manages tasks such as layout and publication preparation, submission of journal issues to national and international indexes, and other communication-related responsibilities of the journal.  

Last Update Time: 1/20/25, 9:00:16 PM

The articles are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY). It is the responsibility of the authors to obtain the necessary permissions for any materials used in the article. The scientific and legal accountability of the articles rests with the authors.