Each article is reviewed by the editor and if it is determined to be suitable for publication, it is sent to two independent referees for double-blind peer review. Based on their recommendations and consultations among the relevant Editorial Board members, the editor then decides whether to accept the article as is, revise it or reject it.

- Publishing Decision
- Impartiality
- Security
- Differences of Opinion and Statement
- Cooperation in taking part in research

Cihansumul Academy Journal of Social Sciences asks its editors to write a short statement about their views that may be seen as having the potential to influence their unbiased evaluations. Such transparency is an ethical duty owed to authors and readers, and is an equal counterpart to the expression of opinion expected from authors, referees and book reviewers. Editorial staff are expected to distance themselves from decision-making arrangements that could potentially create disagreement.

The staff who evaluate the works of Cihansumul Academy Social Sciences Journal are selected from among the experts on the subjects mentioned in the articles. The reasons for their selection are due to their objectivity and scientific knowledge. All people who will make the evaluations are informed about what Cihansumul Academy Journal of Social Sciences expects from them. Each person is asked to fill out an evaluation form and, if necessary, prepare a separate report. Individuals who disagree on the subject of any article are not eligible to review that article (e.g., those who contributed to or collaborated with one of the authors, or are unable to provide an objective opinion on the work; are also employees of, or competitors of, the institution whose work is being reviewed. , people with particular political and ideological views). These people must contact the editorial board and state any possible disagreement/conflict of interest before the article is submitted to the referee committee.

- Evaluations are expected to be professional, honest, tactful, timely and constructive. The essential elements required for a high-quality evaluation are:
- Those who make the evaluation should identify the weak and strong aspects of the working order and methodology and express their comments on them.
- Evaluators should accurately and constructively criticize the author's skill in data processing (taking into account that the data may be limited).
- Evaluators should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the study as a written communication tool, regardless of its design, methodology, results and treatment.
- Evaluators should explain their opinions about whether the study has content that may raise ethical concerns or low scientific standards.
- Reviewers should make useful recommendations to the authors so that the study can be improved.
- Reviewers' criticisms should be constructive and professional towards the author.
- The review should provide the editor with an accurate perspective and context so that he can decide on the acceptance (and/or review) of the work.
- Evaluators are expected to identify studies that do not use citations and to use citations to indicate which elements of the work have been cited previously. Reviewers should also report any striking similarities between the text reviewed and any work published in another journal or referenced in the Cihansumul Academy Journal of Social Sciences.
- Reviewers are strictly expected not to contact the author directly. In many cases, the opinion of two experts will be sought; But the opinions of these experts may not be the same as the editor's final decision on the article in question. Seeking advice, even partial, from a referee may give authors the wrong impression of the review process.

Privacy
- The information and ideas gained as a referee during the evaluation are kept confidential and cannot be used as an advantage in any way. Since the application is a privileged notification, it is kept completely confidential.
- The application cannot be taken or copied by the evaluators. Additionally, reviewers cannot share the work with their colleagues without the written permission of the editor.
- Evaluators and editors cannot make professional or personal use of the data, interpretations or subjects of the study (unless directly related to the evaluation) or write edits or comments on the study before publication, unless they have the specific permission of the authors.
- In case of any disagreement/conflict of interest, reviewers must notify the editorial board.
- If reviewers cannot review any study or can only do so with some delay, they should inform Cihansumul Academy Journal of Social Sciences about this.
- Evaluators should objectively evaluate the quality of the work in question, provide open, impartial and constructive criticism, and avoid personal criticism against the authors. There is no harm in the authors knowing/seeing the comments made by the referees. Therefore, the opinions of the referees should be clearly stated and supported so that the authors can understand the basis of the comments and evaluations.
- If evaluators suspect any violation, they can easily report this to the editor, and at the same time, they should definitely not share the situation in question with other parties unless they receive information from Cihansumul Academy Journal of Social Sciences that they can do so.
- When an ethical concern arises regarding any study that has been published or is in the evaluation phase, and to get more information, you can send an e-mail to abdullcengiz@gmail.com.

Number of Reviewers: Editorial Review - Two External Reviewers (Peer Review)
Author-Referee Interaction: Mediates all interactions between editors, referees and authors.
Reviewer Interaction: Reviewers can only communicate with editors.
Time in Review: Average 56 Days / 8 Weeks
Plagiarism Prevention Similarity Scanning: In Progress – iThenticate
The work accepted for publication is read for the last time by the Editor-in-Chief. It is then submitted to the Language Editor for English language checking.
The author is asked to revise the text in line with the requests of the Editor-in-Chief and the Language Editor. The revised text is sent to typesetting by the Editor-in-Chief. The issue in which the typeset articles will be published is planned by the Editor-in-Chief.