Evaluation Principles
1. Articles that have not been previously published or are not currently under review by another journal and are approved by each author are accepted for review.
2. Submitted articles that pass the preliminary check are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate/intihal.net software.
3. Baberti operates a double-masked peer review process. The editor will first evaluate all works for suitability to the journal. Articles deemed suitable will be sent to at least two independent expert reviewers to assess the article's scientific quality.
4. The Editor-in-Chief evaluates articles independently of the author's ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious belief, and political philosophy. The Editor-in-Chief ensures that articles sent for publication undergo fair double-masked peer review.
5. The Editor-in-Chief does not allow conflicts of interest among authors, editors, and reviewers.
6. The editor is responsible for deciding whether to accept or reject articles. The editor's decision is final.
7. Editors do not participate in decisions about articles written by themselves or by family members or colleagues or articles related to products or services in which the editor is interested. Any submission that happens to be submitted is subject to all the journal's usual procedures.
Reviewers
• Reviewers must ensure that all information regarding submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published and must report any copyright infringement or plagiarism detected to the editor.
• If a reviewer feels unqualified to review the article topic or cannot provide a timely review, they should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
• During the review process, the editor clearly states to the reviewers that the manuscripts sent for review are the private property of the authors and privileged communication. Reviewers and editorial board members must not discuss articles with others. Reviewers' identities must be kept confidential.

Evaluation Process
Type of Review: Double-Blind Review
Double-Blind Review: After the plagiarism check, suitable articles are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief for originality, methodology, the significance of the subject, and compatibility with the journal's scope. The editor ensures that the articles undergo fair, double-masked peer review. If the article meets formal requirements, it is sent to at least two reviewers from within or outside the country. Reviewers approve the article's publication after the authors make the necessary changes.
Review Time: Pre-publication
Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Review Time: For research articles under review at Baberti Journal, the time to the first decision is approximately 15 days.
Acceptance Rate: We publish about 65% of the articles submitted to our journal.
Plagiarism Check: Yes – iThenticate/intihal.net scans articles to prevent plagiarism.
Number of Reviewers Per Article: Two to three
It allowed Time: 20 days. This period can be extended by an additional ten days.
Decision: For an article to be accepted for publication by the editor, at least two reviewers must approve it.
Suspicion of Ethical Violations: Reviewers should inform the editor if they suspect research or publication misconduct. The editor is responsible for taking the necessary actions following COPE recommendations.

The editor-in-chief reviews the research article on the day it is submitted. If the article is deemed worthy of further evaluation, the editor sends it to an associate editor for a more detailed review. The assistant editor typically reads each research article thoroughly. We aim to reach an initial decision on all papers within two or three weeks, but the first decision is usually made within a few days of submission. If we think something other than Baberti is the right journal for the work, we inform the authors promptly so they can submit their work elsewhere without delay. The usual reasons for rejection at this stage are insufficient originality and the topic being outside the journal's scope.

The next step for your research article is the Editorial Board meeting. Members will read your article and discuss its importance, originality, and scientific quality. We primarily focus on the research question when making editorial decisions for research articles. Even if the article's topic is suitable for the journal's scope, current, and essential, we may reject the article if there is no research question. Of course, the study will be dismissed if there are serious flaws. At the beginning of the article meeting, everyone attending is asked to declare any relevant conflicts of interest, and anyone with a significant conflict of interest, depending on the nature and extent of their interests, will either leave the room or speak last when the relevant article is discussed.
If your article suits Baberti, the section editor will send it to two external reviewers. Reviewers make recommendations to the editors, who will make the final decision. We ask reviewers to confirm their reports and declare any conflicts of interest they may have with the article we sent them. The editor-in-chief makes the final editor-in-chief of the external peer review process for suspected severe research misconduct; some articles may also be seen by Baberti's ethics editor and third parties deemed appropriate by the editor.
For all articles, we aim to reach a final decision on publication within 4 to 6 weeks after submission. If we offer a revised publication, we usually ask authors to revise their articles and upload them to the system within the next month.
Accepted articles are published online as they are ready at https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/babertidergisi. After publication, articles are selected for the next issue.
As part of its commitment to readers and authors, Baberti provides open access to articles. All our articles are freely accessible online.
If you notice any errors in your published article, kindly email the Editor-in-Chief, who will let you know whether a correction will be made.

Review Process Principles for Editorial Staff Work
Editorials and analysis articles written by Baberti's editors are not subject to external peer review. Original research articles, however, are sent to at least two external reviewers under a double-masked peer review. During this period, the roles of those editors are suspended.

Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening
The editor reviews the work for compliance with the journal's publication principles, academic writing rules, and the Isnad Citation System, and it is screened for plagiarism using the iThenticate or Intihal.net program. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The similarity rate should be less than 20%. Even if the similarity rate appears 1%, plagiarism may still be an issue if citation and quotation rules are not followed. Therefore, authors should be aware of and carefully apply citation and quotation rules:

Citation/Indirect Quotation: If a thought, discussion, or finding from a source is cited and the cited view is expressed in the researcher's own words, a footnote mark (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. The page number should be given if the citation refers to a specific page or range of pages. If a citation refers to the entire work, requiring the reader to review the whole work, it should be indicated with "For this issue, see." or "For this view, see." or "see." followed by the source in the footnote.

Quotation: If the relevant part is taken verbatim from the consulted source without changing punctuation, the quoted part should be "given in double quotation marks," the source should be indicated with a footnote number 1 at the end. Quotes within directly quoted text should be 'written using single quotation marks.' The quoted part should be shown as a separate paragraph if it is longer than three lines (more than forty words). To distinguish long quotes from the main text, writing them in smaller font sizes than the standard text and with an indented left margin is preferable. Some words, sentences, and paragraphs may be omitted in directly quoted text without changing the meaning. Ellipses (...) should be placed in place of the omitted parts. It is incorrect to write the quoted part from a source without "double quotation marks" and only indicate the source at the end. Failure to follow these rules may result in the author being accused of violating publication ethics (Plagiarism).

Section Editor Review
After the preliminary review and plagiarism screening, the relevant section editor reviews the work for problematic and academic language-style issues. This review is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Peer Review Process (Academic Evaluation)
The work that passes the section editor's review is submitted for evaluation to at least two external reviewers who have a doctoral thesis, book, or article on the subject. The peer review process is conducted confidentially under a double-masked review. Reviewers are asked to express their opinions and judgments about the work directly on the text or online review form with a justification of at least 150 words. The author is given the right to object and defend their views if they disagree with the reviewer's opinions. The section editor facilitates mutual communication between the author and the reviewer while maintaining confidentiality. If both reviewers' reports are positive, the work is submitted to the Editorial Board for consideration for publication. If one of the two reviewers gives a negative opinion, the work is sent to a third reviewer. Works can be published with the approval of at least two reviewers. The publication of book and symposium reviews and doctoral thesis summaries is decided based on the evaluation of at least two internal reviewers (relevant section editors and editorial board members).

Correction Stage
If reviewers request corrections in the text they reviewed, the relevant reports are sent to the author, and they are asked to correct their work. The author makes corrections in Word with the "Track Changes" feature turned on or indicates changes in red. The corrected text is submitted to the section editor.

Section Editor Control
The section editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

Reviewer Control
The reviewer who requested corrections checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

Expansion of Abstract
Authors of works deemed "publishable" by two reviewers are asked to expand the abstract to 200 words.

Turkish Language Control
The Turkish Language Editor and Editor-in-Chief review works that pass the peer review process, and corrections are requested from the author if necessary. The review is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

English Language Control
The English Language Editor reviews works that pass the Turkish language review, and corrections are requested from the author if necessary. The review by the English language editor is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Editorial Board Review
Works that pass technical, academic, and linguistic reviews are reviewed by the Editorial Board, which decides whether to publish them and, if so, which issue they will be included in. The board makes decisions by majority vote. In case of a tie, the editor makes the final decision.

Typesetting and Layout Stage
The works decided to be published by the Editorial Board are typeset and laid out, then sent to the author for review. This stage takes a maximum of 15 days.

Submission of Data to National and International Indexes
The data for the published issue is submitted to the relevant indexes within 15 days.