Review Policies

Our journal is an international, peer-reviewed, scientific online journal in which theoretical and applied original research, reviews and compilations are published.

  • The journal includes works that have not been published anywhere before. Since it has not been stated or determined that it has been published anywhere before, the legal consequences that may arise regarding the copyright of the published works belong entirely to the author (s).
  • The language of the journal is English and Turkish.
  • If the studies are supported by any institution or organization, this institution or organization should be indicated as a footnote in the study.
  • Articles submitted to our journal are subject to a 3-stage evaluation process.

1. Pre-evaluation: Compliance with journal writing rules, formal evaluation, publication language, etc. evaluated from angles. This process takes 3 months.

2.Peer-reviewing process: In this process, the article is sent to two academicians who are experts in their field. In order for the studies to proceed to the next stage, they must be reported positively by at least two reviewers.

3. Editorial board evaluation: At this stage, the article is examined in the editorial board before publication and it is decided whether it is ready for publication. The final decision regarding the publication of the articles belongs to the editorial board. In order for the studies to be published in our journal, they must successfully complete these three stages.

  • Studies submitted to the journal are submitted for evaluation by at least two reviewers. If deemed necessary, the study can be reviewed by more than two reviewers. During the evaluation process, author and reviewer information is kept confidential for both parties.
  • Articles in the journal are evaluated by double-blind peer review process. Reviewers and authors cannot communicate directly with each other during the double blind reviewing process. Evaluation and reviewer reports are submitted through the journal management system. In this process, the evaluation reports sent by the reviewer and the corrected texts sent by the author (s) are uploaded to the system and sent to the parties through the editor. Assists in the impartial evaluation of double-blind peer-review studies.
  • The author must fulfill the correction suggestions specified by the reviewer and the board.
  • Author (s) can object, provided that they show evidence against the reviewers' negative opinions. This objection is examined and if necessary, a different reviewer opinion is applied. 
  • In order for the studies to be published, the author (s) must take into account the opinions and suggestions of the Reviewer and the Editorial Board.
  • The final decision regarding the publication of the articles belongs to the editorial board.
  • Studies submitted for publication in the journal are not returned, whether published or not.
  • If the reviewers do not evaluate the work within a reasonable time, the relevant work can be sent to different reviewers for evaluation.
  • Legal responsibilities arising from the content of the studies published in the journal belong entirely to the author (s).
  • Studies submitted to the journal must comply with ethical rules. Turnitin is used as a plagiarism detection program in our journal. In the review report, the quotations should not exceed 20% and the publication report should be uploaded to the system as an "additional file".
  • Authors must state their ORCID information in their articles in order for the journal to be published.
  • In studies requiring an Ethics Committee Report, articles that do not receive an Ethics Committee Report will not be evaluated.


Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Evaluating the reviewed articles with "Blind Reviewing" for objective and independent review increases the quality of publication and provides confidence. For this reason, the principle of double-blind reviewing is applied in the article evaluation process in our journal. In our journal, the author (s) and reviewers cannot directly contact the articles in the process of review. Evaluations and comments of reviewers are carried out through the journal management system. The opinions of the reviewers on the evaluation forms and the article text are delivered to the editors by the editor. The editors should follow up that the reviewers complete the evaluation process objectively, independently and ethically.

Our journal reviewers are required to have the following ethical responsibilities:

  • Reviewers should fulfill their ethical responsibilities in the article evaluation process.
  • Reviewers should agree to review work related to their field. It should not review articles outside of their field.
  • Reviewers must comply with the article evaluation period.
  • Reviewers should complete the article evaluation process with impartiality and confidentiality.
  • Reviewers need to complete the peer reviewing process regardless of personal characteristics, gender, religion, political, commercial conflicts, citizenship etc. These personal characteristics should not influence the Reviewers' decisions. The evaluation process should be completed objectively.
  • When the reviewers think that they are faced with a conflict of interest during the article evaluation process, they should refuse to evaluate the article and inform the editor of the journal on this issue.
  • Reviewers should use polite / constructive language and style while evaluating the article they have reviewed. They should avoid comments and expressions that contain offensive, insulting, slander and hostility.
  • Reviewers can only use the content of the studies they examine due to the confidentiality principle after publication. They cannot use any information from rejected studies.
  • Reviewers can suggest citations that will contribute scientifically to the work of the author (s). However, Reviewers should not make suggestions to increase their citation count.
  • Reviewers should not have access to information about the identity of the author (s). If the author (s) 'information is accessed or received, the evaluation process should be terminated.
  • Reviewers should be aware of personal biases that may arise during the peer review process and should take this into account while reviewing the article.
  • Reviewers should clearly and in detail write the grounds for refusal for candidate articles in the Reviewer report.