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. 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.

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.