The editor-in-chief carries out the publication process of all studies published in Akdeniz University Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences (AKSOS). The editor-in-chief shapes these decisions in line with the reviews of the field editors and the referees recommended by the field editors.

Articles submitted to the journal through the Dergipark system are evaluated under complete anonymity through a double-blind peer-review process. In this system, only the editor-in-chief is aware of every stage of the publication process. Both the authors do not know who the referees are and the referees do not know whose work is being evaluated. Thus, it is prevented that the referees evaluate the manuscript with prejudice. In addition, since the author does not know the referees, the possibility of reaching the referees through private means and influencing them is eliminated. From this point of view, the double-blind review process is considered to ensure objective evaluation and equal opportunity.

Each submitted manuscript is evaluated by at least two referees who are considered to be experts in the relevant field. In cases where there is a discrepancy in the evaluations of both referees, a third referee is also consulted. However, the final decision-making authority in the evaluation process of all manuscripts rests with the editor-in-chief.

Initial Evaluation
The relevant editor or the journal secretary reviews the incoming manuscript according to whether it is suitable for the purpose and scope of the journal, whether it complies with the spelling rules, and its English and Turkish language proficiency. As a result of the review, manuscripts that do not comply with the journal's publication rules and publication policy are returned to the responsible author.

Preliminary Evaluation Process
In the preliminary evaluation process, the manuscript that receives a positive impression from the editor is forwarded to the field editors. The manuscript is reviewed by the field editors in terms of scientific suitability, abstract, introduction, introduction, material/method, discussion and conclusion sections, as well as formal suitability. As a result of this review, the field editors propose referees for the articles that are deemed appropriate and the manuscript is taken into the referee evaluation process.

Peer Review Process
According to the content of the articles, at least two referees who are experts in the relevant field and who have current studies in the relevant field are determined. The referee suggestions from the field editor are evaluated by the editor-in-chief and the relevant referees are assigned to the studies. Referees evaluate and report the work.

Referee Reports
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for scientific relevance, purpose, material/method, results and discussion. The manuscript may be accepted outright, asked to be revised or rejected. In cases where revisions are requested, the suggestions from the referees are notified to the authors and the authors are asked to revise their work. The results of the revisions received from the authors are re-examined by the referees and the decision is notified to the editor. In case of disagreement between the assigned referees, the manuscript is sent to a third referee.

Publication Process
Accepted studies are usually included in the first issue to be published.