Peer Review Policies: Double-Blind Peer-Review +Transparent Peer Review

1) Only those manuscripts approved by every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.
2) Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using TURNITIN software.
3) After the plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by the editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered, and compliance with the journal scope.
4) The selected manuscripts are sent to at least two national/international referees for evaluation.
5) Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. He/She must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
6) It is necessary to expect an average of 130 days from submission to publication. The Publication process (Review time approximately 130 days): The Publication process (Review time approximately 130 days): Editor review (10 Days), Preliminary review & Plagiarism screening (15 Days), Revision (10 Days), Editorial Board review (20 Days), Double-blind review (Two reviewers - 40 Days), Revision ( 10 Days), Editor review (10 Days), English-Language Check (15 Days).

Responsibility for the Editor
1) Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief, or political philosophy of the authors.
2) Editor-in-Chief provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication and ensures that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept confidential before publishing.
3) The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees must be ensured. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.
4) The publication decision is given by the Editorial Board upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.
5) Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors, and reviewers. Only he has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for the final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.

Responsibility for Reviewers
1) Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors, and/or the research funders. Their judgments must be objective.
2) Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.
3) A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Peer Review Process
Only those manuscripts approved by every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.
Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using TURNITIN software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by the editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered, and compliance with the journal scope.

The selected manuscripts are sent to at least two national/international referees for evaluation.

If the referees deem it necessary, changes are made by the author. The Editorial Board decides whether to publish the text corrected by the author.

Editor-in-chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief, or political philosophy of the authors and ensures a fair double-blind peer review of the selected manuscripts.

Editor in chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors, and reviewers.

Reviewers’ judgments must be objective. Reviewers’ comments on the following aspects are expected while conducting the review.

Does the manuscript contain new and significant information?
2) Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the manuscript?
3) Is the problem significant and concisely stated?
4) Are the methods described comprehensively?
5) Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
6) Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
7) Is the language acceptable?

Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.

A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees is important.

The Review process
It is necessary to expect an average of 130 days weeks from submission to publication. The Publication process (Review time approximately 130 days): The Publication process (Review time approximately 130 days): Editor review (10 Days), Preliminary review & Plagiarism screening (15 Days), Revision (10 Days), Editorial Board review (20 Days), Double-blind review (Two reviewers - 40 Days), Revision ( 10 Days), Editor review (10 Days), English-Language Check (15 Days).

Double-blind peer review Preliminary Examination and Plagiarism Screening:
The study is reviewed by the editor for compliance with the journal publication principles, academic writing rules, and the ISNAD Citation Style and it is scanned about plagiarism by using the TURNITIN program. Placenta similarity rate to be less than %15 conditions required. This review is completed in a maximum of 15 days.

Section Editor Review
The study which was carried out Preliminary Examination and Plagiarism Screening is examined by the related section editor in terms of problematic and academic language style. This review is completed in a maximum of 15 days.

Review Process (Academic Evaluation)
The study, which is subjected to review by the section editor, is submitted to the evaluation of at least two referees who has a doctoral thesis, book, or article. The arbitration process is carried out confidentially within the framework of double-sided blind arbitration. The referee is required to present his / her opinion about the reviewed study either on the text or to justify it with an explanation of at least 150 words on the online referee form. The author is given the right to defend his / her objections and opinions if he/she does not agree with the opinion of the referee. The field editor provides mutual communication between the author and the referee while maintaining confidentiality. If both of the referee reports are positive, the study is submitted to the Editorial Board with a proposal for the evaluation of its publication. In case one of the two judges declares a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third referee. The studies can be published at least two positive decisions. Translated articles are sent to language and related field experts to assess the appropriateness of the original, the proper use of concepts, and language. The translation which the experts’ stated negative opinions are not published. The publication of book and symposium reviews and dissertation abstracts is decided as a result of the evaluation of the related field editors.

Correction Phase
In the case of referees requesting proofreading in the text that they are examining, relevant reports are sent to the author and they are asked to correct them. The correction is requested to be completed within 10 days. The author presents his corrections by specifying a red color to the section editor.

Section Editor Control
The field editor checks whether the author makes the corrections requested in the text. The inspection process is completed within a maximum of 5 days.

Referee Control
The referee who requests correction checks whether the author has made any corrections requested from him in the text. The inspection process is completed within a maximum of 7 days.
Preparing Extended Summary
After the referee evaluation, it is requested to expand the abstract part of the articles to 500-600 words.

Turkish Language Control
The works which are passed through the referees are examined by Language Editor and if necessary the author is asked for a correction. The inspection process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

English Language Control
The works which are passed through the Turkish Language Control are examined by English Language Editor and if necessary the author is asked for a correction. The inspection process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Arabic Language Control
The works which are passed through the English Language Control are examined by Arabic Language Editor and if necessary the author is asked for a correction. The inspection process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Editorial Board Review
The works are passed through technical, academic, and linguistic examinations, and the final broadcast status is decided with the review of the Editorial Board. In case of objection from the members, the Board shall decide by majority vote.

Typesetting and Layout
The works which decided to be published by the Editorial Board, are made ready for publication by making the typesetting and layout of the works.

Data Transmission to National and International Indexes
The printed copies of the published issue shall be submitted to local and external reference libraries within 60 days at the latest; article metadata is transmitted to related Indexes within 15 days.

Evaluation Form
Book Review Form

Referee Guidelines
Please follow the steps listed below in order to review an article sent through the system:

1. Log into the “Manuscript Handling System” by entering your user name and password.

2. Click “Reviewer” on the upper menu.

3. Click “Articles” (“Submissions”) on the reviewer page.

4. You will now see the title and status of the article you have been requested to review. Click the magnifier icon found under “Show” on the left-hand side.

5. On the new page that appears you will find information concerning the article and its English and Turkish abstracts. At the bottom, there is a question as to whether or not you accept to review the article. To accept, click “I would like to review the article” in the green-shaded area.

6. Once you accept to make a review, you can download the Article file. You can also review the article by using the evaluation form that will appear on the same page.

7. While filling in the form, if you click “Save” without completing your evaluation, you can return to the form later to complete the remaining sections.

8. Once you fill in the whole form and your evaluation is complete, click “Save and Finish”.