Article Categories and Process Information
The Journal of the Faculty of Divinity of Ankara University (AUIFD) is an open-access academic journal that conducts plagiarism checks, preliminary evaluations, double-blind peer reviews, and editorial review processes.
All submissions undergo a plagiarism check using iThenticate during the initial submission phase. A similarity rate below 20% is expected. If similarity exceeds 20%, the Editorial Board will evaluate the report's validity.
The journal publishes works in the following categories: Research Articles, Research Notes, Book Reviews, Scientific Conference Reviews, Interviews, and Tributary Notes.
1. Research Article
General Information
A research article is, in general, a type of academic writing that aims to describe, defend, and prove a particular thesis on a given topic or to refute an existing argument by providing justifications. It presents ideas and viewpoints supported to meet the following criteria:
• It should fall within at least one of the scholarly fields covered by AUIFD.• It should be an original. It should contribute to the field.
• It should be based on fundamental sources relevant to the chosen topic.
• It should review and take into account previous studies on the topic.
• The language and style of the manuscript should comply with academic conventions.
• Relevant terminology must be used accurately and appropriately.
• Depending on the article’s purpose and content, it should feature a clear thesis supported by well-developed arguments.
Preliminary Evaluation Process
• A manuscript submitted as a research article undergoes a preliminary evaluation.
• During this evaluation, it is checked whether the article meets the above requirements at a minimum level and whether it is prepared in accordance with the journal’s publication principles.
• Preliminary evaluation is conducted by members of the Editorial Board; however, the Advisory Board or other subject-matter experts may also be consulted.
• Following the preliminary evaluation, the Editorial Board decides whether the article is suitable for peer review. If it does not meet the minimum requirements, the article is rejected by the Editorial Board without being peer-reviewed.
• If, after the preliminary evaluation, an article is deemed suitable for peer review, it is sent to two different reviewers.
o If both reviewers indicate in their reports that the article is “not publishable,” the article is rejected by the Editorial Board.
o If both reviewers indicate in their reports that the article is “publishable,” the article proceeds to the editorial reading process upon the Editorial Board’s approval.
o If one one reviewer indicates “publishable” and the other indicates “not publishable,” the article is sent to a third reviewer. After the third reviewer’s report and the Editorial Board’s evaluation, if the article is approved, it proceeds to the editorial reading process. If it is deemed “not publishable,” the article is rejected.
• Referee reports are reviewed during the first Editorial Board meeting held after the reports are received by the journal. The Editorial Board conveys the decision regarding the article to the author after the meeting.
• If the Editorial Board finds the reviewers’ reports insufficient or unconvincing, it may assign additional reviewers.
• If a reviewer submits a report stating “publishable after minor/major revisions,” the article is returned to the author to make the necessary corrections. To enable the Editorial Board to track the changes made, the author must activate the “Track Changes” feature in Microsoft Word.
• If a reviewer indicates “I would like to see the revised version of the article,” the article is sent back to that reviewer for re-evaluation.
• The author has the right to object to any revision suggestions made by reviewers or the Editorial Board; however, in doing so, a reasonable explanation must be provided.
• The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject an article if the author disregards the reviewers’ or the Editorial Board’s suggestions or requests for revisions without offering any justification.
Editorial Review Process
• After being revised in line with the reviewers’ reports, the manuscript is examined by the Editorial Board with the “Track Changes” function enabled and is subjected to an editorial reading process in the following order.
• The article is first reviewed for language clarity and logical coherence. Words or sentences deemed awkward, unclear, or ambiguous are identified. Any such issues, along with possible suggestions for improvement, are recorded as comments for the author’s attention.
• The article is then reviewed for adherence to both general spelling rules and the journal’s specific style guidelines. The Editorial Board may make any changes necessary to maintain the journal’s overall appearance and stylistic consistency. Because “Track Changes” is enabled, the author will be able to see all modifications directly in the text.
• The references and cited sources in the article are checked for completeness and accuracy. The article is also reviewed for compliance with the AUIFD Publication Guidelines, including footnotes, references, and any abbreviations used in the main text or footnotes. Necessary revisions are noted as comments for the author.
• The article is reviewed in terms of transliteration. At this stage, any necessary corrections in line with the AUIFD Publication Guide are submitted to the author’s attention by the Editorial Board.
• Once the editorial review process is complete, the article—accompanied by any notes or requests from the Editorial Board—is returned to the author for final amendments and to address any remaining issues.
2. Research Notes and Comments:
General Information:
Research notes and comments are writings prepared to correct specific information, raise awareness on a particular topic, or highlight a new approach. AUIFD recognizes the importance of this category of writing and seeks to provide an academic platform for researchers to share concise information and findings encountered during their work—insights that may not warrant a full article but are nonetheless valuable to the academic community.
• A manuscript submitted as a research note or comment undergoes a preliminary evaluation.
• During this evaluation, it is checked whether the article meets the above requirements at a minimum level and whether it is prepared in accordance with the journal’s publication principles. A study that does not meet these criteria will be rejected by the Editorial Board.
• Preliminary evaluation is conducted by members of the Editorial Board; however, the Advisory Board or other subject-matter experts may also be consulted.
• Following the preliminary evaluation, the Editorial Board decides whether the article is suitable for the editorial review process.
Editorial Review Process
• After being revised in line with the reviewers’ reports, the manuscript is examined by the Editorial Board with the “Track Changes” function enabled and is subjected to an editorial reading process in the following order.
• The article is first reviewed for language clarity and logical coherence. Words or sentences deemed awkward, unclear, or ambiguous are identified. Any such issues, along with possible suggestions for improvement, are recorded as comments for the author’s attention.
• The article is then reviewed for adherence to both general spelling rules and the journal’s specific style guidelines. The Editorial Board may make any changes necessary to maintain the journal’s overall appearance and stylistic consistency. Because “Track Changes” is enabled, the author will be able to see all modifications directly in the text.
• The references and cited sources in the article are checked for completeness and accuracy. The article is also reviewed for compliance with the AUIFD Publication Guidelines, including footnotes, references, and any abbreviations used in the main text or footnotes. Necessary revisions are noted as comments for the author.
• The article is reviewed in terms of transliteration. At this stage, any necessary corrections in line with the AUIFD Publication Guide are submitted to the author’s attention by the Editorial Board.
• Once the editorial review process is complete, the article—accompanied by any notes or requests from the Editorial Board—is returned to the author for final amendments and to address any remaining issues.
3. Book Reviews
General Information
The Book Review section of AUIFD features reviews of academic original and translated works related to Islamic, religious, and philosophical topics. These include books, articles, journals, encyclopedias, conferences, scientific meetings, electronic resources, academic websites, and documentaries. The section is open to all perspectives and approaches. As long as the text adheres to academic standards, the reviewer’s beliefs, opinions, and critiques will not pose a barrier to publication.
The work under review should generally have been published within the last five years. However, reviews of unpublished works or works published earlier may be considered at the discretion of the Editorial Board.
Except for specific guidelines outlined below, reviews must follow the same format and standards as other submissions to AUIFD. Submissions in this category should meet the following criteria:
• Address at least one of the scientific fields covered by the journal’s scope.• Include page-numbered references to the reviewed work within the text.
• Analyze the significance, originality, issues, and contributions of the work to its field.
• Focus primarily on the work itself rather than its author.
• Be written in an objective and constructive tone.
• Avoid personal critiques, unscientific provocations, and implicit or explicit exaggerations.
• Respect the author’s right to respond to the review.
• Not be submitted by individuals who contributed to the production or publication of the work (e.g., advisors, committee members of a thesis, or individuals acknowledged in the work’s introduction).
If a work requires a detailed and lengthy review, the text should be formatted as a standard article. Such reviews will still appear in the Book Review section. However, if the review engages in an in-depth discussion of a specific topic, the author may request it to be evaluated as a peer-reviewed original article.
The author of the reviewed work may respond to the review if desired. Responses must maintain an academic tone and language and will be published, subject to Editorial Board approval, in the first available issue after submission.
Reviews must employ academic language and tone. Insulting, dismissive, mocking, or accusatory language should be avoided. Unfounded criticisms or excessive praise beyond the scholarly value of the work are not acceptable. Evaluations should go beyond summarizing the content or chapters of the work; superficial descriptions derived solely from the table of contents or similar sources will not be considered.
Book reviews should not rely on easily accessible information from the back cover, preface, conclusion, or table of contents. Instead, they should critically evaluate the book’s theses, structure, style, and contribution to scholarly knowledge in the field.
When evaluating written works, reviewers should particularly address the following points:
• The persuasiveness, originality, and theoretical framework of the author’s thesis.
• The coherence, clarity, and traceability of the author’s presentation and arguments.
• The scholarly adequacy and contribution of the work to its field.
• The organization of the book, the arrangement of chapters and subchapters, and the appropriateness and sufficiency of the resources used in relation to the book’s objectives.
• Whether the book’s style and method align successfully with its intended audience, if specified.
• The proper, effective, and clear use of notes, bibliography, maps, illustrations, and tables.
• Whether the bibliography and index are well-prepared and complete.
• The physical structure and format of the book, its suitability for the target audience, and whether it has been carefully prepared for publication.
At the beginning of the review, the following details of the work should be provided:
Mehmet Kalaycı. Tarihsel Süreçte Eşarilik Maturidilik İlişkisi. 3. baskı. Ankara: Ankara Okulu Yayınları, 2019. 384 s. ISBN: 978-9944-162-70-8
Andreas Kaplony & Michael Marx (ed.). Qurʾān Quotations Preserved on Papyrus Documents, 7th – 10th Centuries And The Problem of Carbon Dating Early Qurʾāns. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2019. XVI+247 s. ISBN: 978-90-04-35891-1
When reviewing a multi-volume work or translation, the bibliographic information should be presented as follows:
İbn Hazm. el-Fasl: Dinler ve Mezhepler Tarihi. Çev. Halil İbrahim Bulut. 1. baskı. İstanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı Yayınları, 2017. 3 c. ISBN (takım): 978-975-17-3906-3
References to the book under review should be provided in parentheses within the text:
… dile getirmektedir (p. 323).
… beyan eder (pp. 10-11).
… yer verir (v. 1, p. 207).
Direct quotations should be enclosed in double quotation marks, and the spelling and transliteration in the criticized work should be preserved in these quotations. For all other cases, the spelling and transliteration rules of AUIFD should be followed.
Preliminary Evaluation Process• A manuscript submitted as a review undergoes a preliminary evaluation.
• During this evaluation, it is checked whether the study meets the above requirements at a minimum level and whether it is prepared in accordance with the journal’s publication principles. A study that does not meet these criteria will be rejected by the Editorial Board.
• Preliminary evaluation is conducted by members of the Editorial Board; however, the Advisory Board or other subject-matter experts may also be consulted.
• Following the preliminary evaluation, the Editorial Board decides whether the study is suitable for the editorial review process.
Editorial Review Process
• After being revised in line with the reviewers’ reports, the manuscript is examined by the Editorial Board with the “Track Changes” function enabled and is subjected to an editorial reading process in the following order.
• The study is first reviewed for language clarity and logical coherence. Words or sentences deemed awkward, unclear, or ambiguous are identified. Any such issues, along with possible suggestions for improvement, are recorded as comments for the author’s attention.
• The study is then reviewed for adherence to both general spelling rules and the journal’s specific style guidelines. The Editorial Board may make any changes necessary to maintain the journal’s overall appearance and stylistic consistency. Because “Track Changes” is enabled, the author will be able to see all modifications directly in the text.
• The references and cited sources in the article are checked for completeness and accuracy. The study is also reviewed for compliance with the AUIFD Publication Guidelines, including footnotes, references, and any abbreviations used in the main text or footnotes. Necessary revisions are noted as comments for the author.
• The study is reviewed in terms of transliteration. At this stage, any necessary corrections in line with the AUIFD Publication Guide are submitted to the author’s attention by the Editorial Board.
• Once the editorial review process is complete, the study—accompanied by any notes or requests from the Editorial Board—is returned to the author for final amendments and to address any remaining issues.
4. The Reviews for Scientific Meetings
General Information:
The reviews for scientific meetings prepared to assess events such as congresses, symposiums, or workshops. Such studies are generally expected to meet the following criteria:
• They should pertain to at least one of the scientific fields covered by the scope of the AUIFD.
• The importance, unique aspects, and contributions of the meeting to its respective field(s) should be thoroughly analyzed.
• They should be written in an objective and constructive tone.
• Personal evaluations, criticisms, or exaggerations about the organizers or presenters, even if indirect or implicit, should be avoided.
• Articles that merely summarize presentation titles from the program without offering deeper analysis or insights will not be considered.
Preliminary Evaluation Process
• A manuscript submitted as a scientific meeting review undergoes a preliminary evaluation.
• During this evaluation, it is checked whether the study meets the above requirements at a minimum level and whether it is prepared in accordance with the journal’s publication principles. A study that does not meet these criteria will be rejected by the Editorial Board.
• Preliminary evaluation is conducted by members of the Editorial Board; however, the Advisory Board or other subject-matter experts may also be consulted.
• Following the preliminary evaluation, the Editorial Board decides whether the study is suitable for the editorial review process.
Editorial Review Process
• After being revised in line with the reviewers’ reports, the manuscript is examined by the Editorial Board with the “Track Changes” function enabled and is subjected to an editorial reading process in the following order.
• The study is first reviewed for language clarity and logical coherence. Words or sentences deemed awkward, unclear, or ambiguous are identified. Any such issues, along with possible suggestions for improvement, are recorded as comments for the author’s attention.
• The study is then reviewed for adherence to both general spelling rules and the journal’s specific style guidelines. The Editorial Board may make any changes necessary to maintain the journal’s overall appearance and stylistic consistency. Because “Track Changes” is enabled, the author will be able to see all modifications directly in the text.
• The references and cited sources in the article are checked for completeness and accuracy. The study is also reviewed for compliance with the AUIFD Publication Guidelines, including footnotes, references, and any abbreviations used in the main text or footnotes. Necessary revisions are noted as comments for the author.
• The study is reviewed in terms of transliteration. At this stage, any necessary corrections in line with the AUIFD Publication Guide are submitted to the author’s attention by the Editorial Board.
• Once the editorial review process is complete, the study—accompanied by any notes or requests from the Editorial Board—is returned to the author for final amendments and to address any remaining issues.
5. Tributary Notes
General Information:
A “tributary note” refers to a written expression of gratitude and remembrance for scholars who have made lasting contributions to the field of Islamic and religious studies. These writings typically provide information about the scholar's life, works, and influence on the intellectual world. Given their personal nature, they may sometimes include anecdotes or emotional reflections stemming from direct acquaintance or personal experiences. It is generally expected that such writings avoid critique or judgment, even when framed as scholarly commentary.
Preliminary Evaluation Process
• A manuscript submitted as a tributary note undergoes a preliminary evaluation.
• During this evaluation, it is checked whether the study meets the above requirements at a minimum level and whether it is prepared in accordance with the journal’s publication principles. A study that does not meet these criteria will be rejected by the Editorial Board.
• Preliminary evaluation is conducted by members of the Editorial Board; however, the Advisory Board or other subject-matter experts may also be consulted.
• Following the preliminary evaluation, the Editorial Board decides whether the study is suitable for the editorial review process.
Editorial Review Process
• After being revised in line with the reviewers’ reports, the manuscript is examined by the Editorial Board with the “Track Changes” function enabled and is subjected to an editorial reading process in the following order.
• The study is first reviewed for language clarity and logical coherence. Words or sentences deemed awkward, unclear, or ambiguous are identified. Any such issues, along with possible suggestions for improvement, are recorded as comments for the author’s attention.
• The study is then reviewed for adherence to both general spelling rules and the journal’s specific style guidelines. The Editorial Board may make any changes necessary to maintain the journal’s overall appearance and stylistic consistency. Because “Track Changes” is enabled, the author will be able to see all modifications directly in the text.
• The references and cited sources in the article are checked for completeness and accuracy. The study is also reviewed for compliance with the AUIFD Publication Guidelines, including footnotes, references, and any abbreviations used in the main text or footnotes. Necessary revisions are noted as comments for the author.
• The study is reviewed in terms of transliteration. At this stage, any necessary corrections in line with the AUIFD Publication Guide are submitted to the author’s attention by the Editorial Board.
• Once the editorial review process is complete, the study—accompanied by any notes or requests from the Editorial Board—is returned to the author for final amendments and to address any remaining issues.
AUIFD is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.