Evaluation Principles
1. Articles that have not been published before or that are not yet under evaluation in another journal for publication and that are approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
2. Submitted and pre-checked articles are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software.
3. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences conducts a double-blind peer-review process. All studies will first be evaluated by the editor in terms of suitability for the journal. The articles deemed appropriate are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers to evaluate the article's scientific quality.
4. The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the articles independently of the authors' ethnic origin, gender, nationality, religious belief, and political philosophy. It ensures that the articles submitted for publication undergo a fair double-blind peer review.
5. Chief Editor; does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors, and reviewers.
6. The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the articles. The editor’s decision is final.
7. Editors are not involved in decisions about articles written by them or their family members or colleagues, or that relate to products or services of interest to the editor. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures.
Reviewers should ensure that all information regarding the submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published, and should report any copyright infringement and plagiarism by the author to the editor.
If the reviewer does not feel qualified about the subject of the article or if it does not seem possible to provide a timely response, he should notify the editor of this situation and ask him not to involve himself in the reviewer process.
During the evaluation process, the editor clearly states that the articles submitted for review to the reviewers are the exclusive property of the authors and this is a privileged communication. Reviewers and editorial board members cannot discuss articles with other people. Care should be taken to keep the identities of the reviewers confidential.

Evaluation Process
Reviewing Type: Double Blind
Double Blinding: After the plagiarism check, eligible articles are evaluated by the editor-in-chief for originality, methodology, the importance of the topic covered, and compatibility with the journal scope. The editor ensures that the articles go through a fair double-blind review and if the article complies with the formal principles, it submits the incoming article to at least two reviewers from the country and/or abroad, and if the reviewers deem it necessary, the editors approve the publication after the requested changes are made by the authors.
Review Time: Pre-release
Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Plagiarism Check: Yes – ithenticate scans articles for plagiarism prevention.
Number of Reviewers Reviewing Each Article: Two-three
Time Allowed: 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 reviewers must make an acceptance decision.
Suspected Ethical Violation: Reviewers should report the situation to the Editor when they suspect research or publication misconduct. The editor is responsible for carrying out the necessary actions by following the COPE recommendations.

Principles of the Peer Process for the Work of the Editorial Staff
Editorial articles and analysis articles written by Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences' own editors are not subject to external reviewer evaluation. On the other hand, original research articles are sent to at least two external reviewers within the scope of blind reviewing. During this time, the roles of those editors are suspended.

Authors Responsibilities
The author must comply with research and publication training.
The author should not attempt to publish the same work in more than one journal.
The author should fully indicate the works he has used in the writing of the article in the bibliography.

Editor's Responsibilities
The editor evaluates articles for scientific content, regardless of the author's ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious belief, or political opinion.
The editor makes a fair double-blind peer-review of the articles submitted for publication and ensures that all information about the submitted articles is kept confidential before publication.
The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential and this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the articles with other people. The anonymity of reviewers should be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share one reviewer's review with other reviewers 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 implement a withdrawal as necessary.
The editor; does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors, and reviewers. Only the reviewer has full authority to appoint and the Editorial Board is responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of the articles in the journal.

Responsibilities of the Reviewers
Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors, and/or research funders.
The evaluations of the reviewers should be objective.
The language and style used by the reviewers should not be offensive to the author.
Reviewers must ensure that all information regarding submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published.
Reviewers should notify the editor if they notice a copyright infringement or plagiarism in the work they are reviewing.
A reviewer who feels inadequate to review an article or thinks that he/she will not be able to complete the review within the specified time should withdraw from the review process.
During the reviewing process, the reviewers are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following: Does the article contain new and important information? / Does the abstract clearly and neatly describe the content of the article? / Is the method coherent and clearly defined? / Are the comments and conclusions made substantiated by the findings? / Are adequate references given to other studies in the field? / Is the language quality adequate?

Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening
Study; The journal is reviewed by the editor for compliance with publication principles, academic writing rules, and APA 6 Citation System, and is screened for plagiarism using the iThenticate program. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The plagiarism similarity rate must be less than 20%. Even though the similarity rate is 1%, if the citation and citation are not duly made, plagiarism may still be in question. In this respect, the author should know and carefully apply citation and citation rules.

Citation/Indirect Citation:  If a reference is made to an opinion, discussion or determination in a source and the cited opinion is lined up with the citing researcher's own words, a footnote (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 whole work, that is, if it is cited in a way that requires the reader to examine the whole work, the footnotes include "See about this.", "See about this opinion.", "See about this discussion." or just “see.” The source should be indicated after the statement.

Quotation/Quote: If the relevant part is taken from the referenced source exactly as it is, without touching the dot and comma, the quoted part is "given in double quotes" and the source is indicated by giving the footnote number 1 at the end. Existing quotations in the directly quoted text are written using 'single quotes'. If the directly quoted part is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it is shown as 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 indent the entire paragraph from the left at the beginning of the carriage line. Some words, sentences and paragraphs can be omitted from the directly quoted text, provided that the meaning is not changed. Three dots (…) are put in place of the removed parts. It would not be correct to write the part that is quoted from a source without enclosing it in "double quotes" and only to write the source at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be accused of publication ethics (Plagiarism).

Field Editor Review
The study, which has passed the Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening phase, is examined by the relevant field editor in terms of problematic and academic language style. This review will be completed in a maximum of 15 days.

Reviewer Process (Academic Evaluation)
The study, which passes the review of the field editor, is submitted to the evaluation of at least two external reviewers who have a doctoral thesis, book or article on the subject. The arbitration process is carried out in secrecy within the framework of the double-blind arbitration practice. The reviewer is requested to either state his opinion and opinion on the study he has examined in the text or justify it with a minimum 150-word explanation on the online reviewer form. If the author disagrees with the reviewer's opinions, he is given the right to object and defend his opinions. Provides mutual communication between the field editor, author, and reviewer, while maintaining confidentiality. If both reviewer reports are positive, the study is submitted to the Editorial Board with a proposal to evaluate its publication. If one of the two reviewers has a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third reviewer. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two reviewers. The publication of book and symposium evaluations and doctoral thesis summaries is decided upon the evaluation of at least two internal reviewers (relevant field editors and/or editorial board members).

Correction Phase
If the reviewers want correction in the text they have examined, the relevant reports are sent to the author and he is asked to correct his work. The author makes the corrections with the "Track Changes" feature turned on in the Word program or indicates the changes in the text with red color. Submits the edited text to the field editor.

Field Editor Control
The field editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

Reviewer Control
The reviewer requesting correction checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

English Language Check
It is reviewed by the English Language Editor and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The English language editor's control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Editorial Board Review
The articles that have passed technical, academic and linguistic examinations are examined by the Editorial Board, and whether they will be published or not, and if they will be published, in which issue they will be included. The Board decides by majority vote. In the event of a tie, the final decision is made in the direction of the editor's decision.

Typesetting and Layout Phase
The typesetting and layout of the works decided to be published by the Editorial Board are made ready for publication and sent to the author for review. This stage lasts for a maximum of 15 days.

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