Evaluation Principles
1) Articles that have not been previously published or are not currently under review for publication in another journal and approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
2) Submitted and pre-checked articles are scanned for plagiarism using Ithenticate software.
3) Milel ve Nihal conducts a double blind review process. All articles will first be evaluated by the editor for suitability for the journal. Articles deemed appropriate are sent to at least two independent expert referees to evaluate the scientific quality of the article.
4) The editor evaluates articles independently of the ethnic origin, gender, nationality, religious beliefs and political philosophy of the authors. He/she ensures that articles submitted for publication undergo a fair double blind peer review.
5) The editor does not allow conflicts of interest between authors, editors and referees.
6) The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The editor's decision is final.
7) Editors are not involved in decisions about articles written by themselves or by family members or colleagues, or about products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures.

Referees should ensure that all information about submitted manuscripts remains confidential until the manuscript is published, and should report to the editor if they discover any copyright infringement or plagiarism on the part of the author.

If the referee does not feel qualified in the subject matter of the article or is unlikely to be able to provide timely feedback, he/she should inform the editor and ask him/her not to involve himself/herself in the review process.

During the review process, the editor should make it clear to referees that articles submitted for review are the private property of the authors and that this is a privileged communication. Referees and editorial board members may not discuss articles with other individuals. Care should be taken to keep the identity of the referees confidential.

Evaluation Process
Refereeing Type: Double Blind
Double Blinding: After the plagiarism check, eligible articles are evaluated by the editor-in-chief in terms of originality, methodology, importance of the subject covered and compatibility with the scope of the journal. The editor ensures that the articles undergo double-blind refereeing in a fair manner, and if the article complies with the formal principles, it is submitted to the evaluation of at least two referees from Türkiye and / or abroad, and if the referees deem it necessary, the referees approve the publication of the article after the desired changes are made by the authors.
Review Time: Pre-Publication
Author-Referee Interactions: Editors mediate all interactions between referees and authors.
Time in Review: 120 days on average
Acceptance Rate: Approximately 65% of the articles received by our journal are published. 
Plagiarism Control: Yes, articles are scanned through the Ithenticate programme to prevent plagiarism.
Number of Referees Reviewing Each Article: At least two referees
Permitted Duration: 20 days. This period can be extended by adding 10 days.
Decision: In order for the article to be accepted for publication by the Editor, at least two acceptance decisions from two referees are required. If there is one rejection and one acceptance decision at the end of the evaluation and revision processes, the relevant editor forwards the article to a third referee.
Suspicion of Ethical Violation: Referees should inform the Editor if they suspect misconduct in the research or publication. The editor is responsible for taking the necessary actions in accordance with COPE recommendations.

The editor reviews the research article within 1 week of submission and, if he/she feels that the article is worthy of further consideration, sends it to the field editor for a more detailed review. For research articles, the field editor usually reads each article thoroughly. The aim is to reach an initial decision within two or three weeks for all articles, but usually the initial decision is made within a few days of submission. If we do not think that Milel ve Nihal is the right journal for the study, authors are notified to submit their work to another journal without delay. The usual reasons for rejection at this stage are insufficient originality and that the topic is outside the scope of the journal.

If the article is suitable for Milel ve Nihal, the field editor sends the article to two external referees after the spell check is completed. The referees advise the editors who make the final decision. The referees are asked to approve their reports and declare any conflicts of interest on the article sent to them. The final decision is made by the Editor after the external peer review process.
In cases of suspected serious research misconduct, some articles may also be reviewed by the ethics editor of Milel ve Nihal and third parties deemed appropriate by the editor.

For all articles, we aim to reach a final decision on publication within 8 to 10 weeks of submission. In the case of a revised publication proposal, we usually ask authors to revise and upload their articles within the following month.
Accepted articles are published on https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/milel as they are prepared. Once published, articles are selected for the next issue.

The Journal of Milel ve Nihal provides open access to articles as part of its commitment to readers and authors. All our articles are freely accessible online.
If you notice any errors in the published article, you can send a message or e-mail to the editor or deputy editor who manages the process whether the correction will be made or not.

Principles of the Review Process for the Studies of the Editorial Staff

Editorials and analysis articles written by the editorial board members of the Journal of Milel ve Nihal are not subject to external refereeing. Original research articles are sent to at least two external referees as blind referees. During this period, the roles of those editors are suspended.

Authors' Responsibilities

The author must comply with research and publication ethics.
The author should not attempt to publish the same study in more than one journal.
The author should indicate in the bibliography the works used in the writing of the article.

• The editor evaluates articles for scientific content without regard to the ethnicity, gender, citizenship, religious beliefs or political opinions of the authors.
• The editor conducts fair double-blind peer review of articles submitted for publication and ensures that all information about submitted articles is kept confidential before publication.
• The editor informs the referees that the articles are confidential and that this is a privileged interaction. Referees and the editorial board cannot discuss manuscripts with other people. The anonymity of referees must be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share a referee's review with other referees to clarify a particular point.
• The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. It is also his/her responsibility to issue a correction note or retraction when necessary.
• The editor does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees.
  

Responsibilities of Referees

• Referees should not have any conflicts of interest related to the research, the authors and/or the research funders.
• The referees' evaluations should be objective.
• The language and style used by the referees should not offend the author.
• Referees should ensure that all information regarding submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published.
• Referees should notify the editor if they notice copyright infringement or plagiarism in the work they review.
• A referee who feels inadequate to review an article or who feels that he/she cannot complete the review in the allotted time should withdraw from the review process.
• During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following points: Does the article contain new and important information? / Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article? / Is the methodology described in a coherent and comprehensible manner? / Are the interpretations and conclusions substantiated by the findings? / Are there sufficient references to other studies in the field? / Is the language quality adequate?

Pre-review, spell checking and plagiarism checking

The article is reviewed by the Editor in terms of the journal's publication principles and academic writing. The pre-review period is maximum 15 days. Articles deemed appropriate are forwarded to the copy editor to be checked for plagiarism, language rules and compliance with the ISNAD System. Manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using the iThenticate programme. Spell check and plagiarism scanning are completed within a maximum of 15 days. The plagiarism similarity rate must be less than 25%. If the similarity rate is 1%, but citation and quotation are not done properly, plagiarism may still be in question. In this respect, citation and quotation rules must be known and carefully applied by the author:

• Citation/Indirect Citation: If a citation is made to an opinion, discussion or determination in a source and the cited opinion is put on the line with the citing researcher's own words, a footnote sign (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. If the reference is to a certain page or page range of the work, the page number should be given. If there is a reference to the entire work, that is, if the reference is made to a degree that requires the reader to examine the entire work, the source should be indicated in the footnote after the phrase "see. on this subject", "see. about this opinion", "see. about this discussion" or just "see.".
• Quotation: If the relevant part of the source is taken exactly as it is, without touching the point and comma, the quoted part is "given in double quotation marks" and the source is indicated by giving the footnote number (1) at the end. Quotations that exist in the directly quoted text are written using 'single quotation marks'. If the directly quoted part is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it is shown in a separate paragraph. In order to distinguish long quotations from the main text, it should be preferred to write in a font size one smaller than the normal text size and to indent the entire paragraph from the left at the beginning of the line. In direct quotations, some words, sentences and paragraphs may be omitted, provided that they do not change the meaning. Ellipses (...) are placed in place of the omitted parts. It is not correct to write the part quoted verbatim from a source without enclosing it in "double quotation marks" and to be contented with just writing the source at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be accused of violation of publication ethics (plagiarism) (see www.isnadsistemi.org).

Section Editor Review
The article, which passes through the Pre-Review, Plagiarism Checking and Spelling Checking stages, is examined by the relevant section editor in terms of problematics and academic language and style. This review is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Referee Process (Academic Evaluation)
After the review of the section editor, the article is submitted to the evaluation of at least two external referees who have a PhD thesis, book or article on the subject. The referee process is carried out in confidentiality within the framework of double blind refereeing. The referee is requested to state his/her opinion and opinion on the article either on the text or to justify it with an explanation on the online referee form. The author is given the right to object and defend his/her views if he/she disagrees with the referee's opinions. The field editor ensures mutual communication between the author and the referee while maintaining confidentiality. If both referee reports are favourable, the editor decides on acceptance. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the editor sends the article to a third referee. Articles can be published with the favourable decision of at least two referees. The publication of book reviews and research notes is decided upon the evaluation of at least one internal referee (the relevant section editors and/or members of the editorial board).

Correction Phase
If the referees request corrections to be made in the text they have reviewed, the relevant reports are sent to the author and the author is asked to correct his/her work. The author makes the corrections in the Word program with the "Track Changes" feature turned on or indicates the changes in the text in red. Submits the corrected text to the field editor.

Section Editor/Control
The section editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections to the text.

Referee Check
The referee checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

English Language Check
The articles that have passed the language control in Turkish are examined by the English Language Editor and if necessary, the author is asked to make corrections. The English language editor's control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Typesetting and Layout Phase
The articles that are decided to be published by the editor are prepared for publication by typesetting and layout and sent to the author for review. This stage takes a maximum of 15 days.

Data Submission to National and International Indexes
The data of the published issue is sent to the relevant indexes within 15 days.