Double-Blind Peer Review and Evaluation Process
Double-blind peer review forms the foundation for the objective evaluation of scientific studies and is widely adopted by many academic journals.
All submissions to the journal undergo a double-blind review process during which both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are kept confidential. Accordingly, authors are asked not to include their names in the initial submission. The journal uses the forms uploaded to the submission portal to record the authors’ identities, institutional affiliations, and other necessary information.
- Initial Evaluation Stage
All submitted manuscripts are first reviewed by the editor-in-chief and then forwarded to the appropriate section editors. Manuscripts that do not comply with the aims and scope of the journal, display poor language proficiency or expression in Turkish, English, or other submitted languages, contain scientific errors or inconsistencies, lack originality, or do not comply with the journal’s publication policy are rejected.
Authors of rejected manuscripts are notified within one month of submission. Manuscripts deemed suitable by the editorial board proceed to the pre-evaluation stage.
- Pre-Evaluation Stage
In this stage, the section editor evaluates the submission based on its aim, scope, methodology, originality, relevance, contribution to the field, and language use in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and scope. If revisions are required, the editor contacts the author and requests the necessary corrections to be submitted within 7 days. If the revised manuscript is not returned within this period, the evaluation process is finalised. Manuscripts that meet the criteria proceed to the reviewer assignment stage.
- Reviewer Assignment Stage
Reviewers are assigned based on the content of the manuscript and their areas of expertise. The section editor assigns at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. By accepting the invitation to review, reviewers agree not to share any part of the review process or documents with third parties or institutions, and not to use the content of the manuscript for their personal purposes.
- Evaluation Process
Reviewers are given 4 weeks to complete their evaluations. Authors must respond to reviewer or editor feedback and submit revisions within 10 days. Reviewers may assess the revised version and either approve it or request further revisions if necessary.
Reviewer Reports
Reviewer evaluations generally include commentary on the topic, aim, scope, structure, theoretical framework, presentation of findings, consistency between objectives and results, originality, currency, adherence to ethical standards, and contribution to the field. Additionally, the compatibility of the title and abstract with the content of the manuscript is assessed. Language proficiency, fluency, and compliance with APA 7 guidelines are also taken into consideration.