Akademik-Us journal applies a rigorous and objective evaluation process for each article. This process is essential to maintain the scientific quality of the journal and to publish content that is in line with research ethics. The article evaluation process is detailed in the following steps:
1. Technical Pre-check
Immediately after submission, a preliminary technical review is carried out by the editor of the journal. The main criteria evaluated at this stage are as follows:
• Article Suitability: Appropriateness of the article to the scope, section or special issue of the journal.
• Research and Ethical Standards: The article conforms to high quality research and ethical standards.
• Methodological Contribution: The relevance of the article to specific scientific methodologies and common academic requirements.
• Plagiarism Screening: Our journal screens all submitted manuscripts to prevent plagiarism. The papers submitted for review are checked for plagiarism using Intihal.net and Turnitin software. The similarity rate is expected to be less than 20%.
The Editor will inform the Editorial Board to evaluate the appropriateness of the article. The Editorial Board evaluates the scientific soundness of the article, the references used and the methodology. At the end of this stage, the manuscript may either be rejected, the authors may be invited to make revisions, or it may be decided to continue with the peer review process.
2. Peer Review
After passing the technical preliminary review stage, the article is sent to at least two independent experts. Akademik-Us journal applies a double-blind peer review process; the identity of the authors is not known to the reviewers.
The submitted manuscripts are reviewed by referees invited by the relevant field editors. Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the manuscript is either accepted or the authors are directed to conduct additional research. Authors can make the necessary revisions to their manuscripts based on the evaluations suggested by the referees; a “Referee Response File” should be created and uploaded to the “Manuscript Files” tab for the corrections they have not applied.
3. Editorial Decision and Revision
After the peer review process, the following decisions can be made about the article:
• Acceptance after Minor Revisions: The article is accepted with minor revisions in line with the reviewers' suggestions. Authors should make minor revisions within fifteen days.
• Re-evaluation after Major Revisions: If the manuscript requires major revisions, authors should resubmit the revised manuscript with point-by-point answers or rejected comments if necessary. Usually the manuscript can be revised twice.
• Rejection and Suggestion for Resubmission: If the research does not support the conclusions of the article, the article is rejected and authors are encouraged to resubmit additional research.
• Final Rejection: The manuscript is rejected if it contains serious errors or does not make an original and significant contribution. Resubmission is not recommended.
Authors should respond point by point to each of the reviewers' comments. In case of disagreement with the referees, the authors respond openly by creating a “Referee Response File”.
4. Final Publication Decision
After the revision process is completed, the final decision is made by the editor-in-chief. The article is positively evaluated by at least 2 reviewers and if all necessary corrections are made, the article is accepted for publication. Before publication, the article is subjected to a final editorial review and checked for grammar and spelling rules.
Akademik-Us licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Licence.