Evaluation Principles
1) Manuscripts that have not been previously published or are not currently under review for publication in another journal and approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
2) Submitted and pre-checked articles are scanned for plagiarism using Ithenticate software.
3) Journal of History of Religions conducts a double blind review process. All manuscripts will first be evaluated by the editor for suitability to the journal. Manuscripts deemed appropriate are sent to at least two independent expert referees to assess the scientific quality of the manuscript.
4) The editor evaluates manuscripts independently of the ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious beliefs and political philosophy of the authors. He/she ensures that manuscripts submitted for publication undergo a fair double blind peer review.
5) The editor does not allow conflicts of interest between authors, editors and referees.
6) The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The editor's decision is final.
7) Editors are not involved in decisions about manuscripts written by themselves or by family members or colleagues, or that relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures.
Reviewers should ensure that all information about submitted manuscripts remains confidential until the manuscript is published, and should report to the editor if they discover any copyright infringement or plagiarism on the part of the author.
If the referee does not feel qualified in the subject matter of the manuscript or is unlikely to be able to provide timely feedback, he/she should inform the editor and ask him/her not to involve himself/herself in the review process.
During the review process, the editor should make it clear to reviewers that manuscripts submitted for review are the private property of the authors and that this is a privileged communication. Reviewers and editorial board members may not discuss manuscripts with other individuals. Care should be taken to keep the identity of the reviewers confidential.

Review Process
Internal Referee Process: Incoming articles are first subjected to the internal refereeing process by the journal boards. In this process, articles deemed suitable for the journal continue their evaluation process.
Refereeing Type: Double Blind
Double Blinding: After the plagiarism check, eligible manuscripts are evaluated by the editor-in-chief in terms of originality, methodology, importance of the topic covered and compatibility with the scope of the journal. The editor ensures that the manuscripts undergo double-blind refereeing in a fair manner and, if the manuscript meets the formal requirements, submits the manuscript to the evaluation of at least two referees from Turkey and / or abroad, and if the referees deem necessary, they approve the publication of the manuscript after the desired changes are made by the authors.
Review Time: Pre-Publication
Author-Referee Interactions: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Time in Review: 10 weeks on average
Plagiarism Check: Yes, articles are scanned through the Ithenticate programme to prevent plagiarism.
Number of Referees Reviewing Each Article: At least two referees
Permitted Duration: 20 days. This period can be extended by adding 10 days.
Decision: In order for the article to be accepted for publication by the Editor, at least two acceptance decisions from two referees are required. If there is one rejection and one acceptance decision at the end of the evaluation and revision processes, the relevant editor forwards the article to a third referee.
Suspicion of Ethical Violation: Referees should inform the Editor if they suspect misconduct in the research or publication. The editor is responsible for taking the necessary actions in accordance with COPE recommendations.

The editor reviews the research article within 1 week of submission and, if he/she considers the article to be worthy of further consideration, sends it to the field editor for a more detailed review. For research articles, the field editor usually reads each article thoroughly. The aim is to reach an initial decision for all manuscripts within two or three weeks, but usually the initial decision is made within a few days of submission. If we do not feel that the Journal of the History of Religions is the right journal for the work, authors will be notified to submit their work to another journal without delay. The usual reasons for rejection at this stage are insufficient originality and the topic being outside the scope of the journal.
If the manuscript is suitable for the Journal of the History of Religions, the field editor sends the manuscript to two external referees after the spell check is completed. The referees advise the editors who make the final decision. The referees are asked to approve their reports and declare any conflicts of interest on the manuscript sent to them. The final decision is made by the Editor after the external referee evaluation processes.
Some manuscripts may also be reviewed by the Journal of History of Religions' ethics editor and third parties deemed appropriate by the editor in cases where serious research misconduct is suspected.
For all manuscripts, we aim to reach a final decision on publication within 8 to 10 weeks after submission. In the case of a revised publication proposal, we usually ask authors to revise and upload their manuscripts within the following month.
The Journal of the History of Religions provides open access to articles as part of its commitment to readers and authors. All our articles are freely available online.
If you notice any errors in the published article, you can send a message or e-mail to the editor or assistant editor who manages the process whether the correction will be made or not.

Referee Process Principles for the Work of the Editorial Staff
Editorial and analysis articles written by the editors of the Journal of the History of Religions are not subject to external refereeing. Original research articles are sent to at least two external referees as blind referees. During this period, the roles of those editors are suspended.

Author Responsibilities
The author must comply with research and publication ethics.
The author should not attempt to publish the same study in more than one journal.
The author should indicate the works that he/she has used in the writing of the article in the bibliography.

Editor's Responsibilities
The editor evaluates manuscripts for scientific content without regard to the ethnic origin, gender, citizenship, religious belief or political opinion of the authors.
The editor conducts fair double-blind peer review of manuscripts submitted for publication and ensures that all information about submitted manuscripts is kept confidential before publication.
The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. Reviewers and the editorial board cannot discuss manuscripts with other people. The anonymity of the referees must be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share a reviewer's review with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.
The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. It is also his/her responsibility to issue a correction note or retraction when necessary.
The editor does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees.

Responsibilities of Referees
Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest related to the research, authors and/or research funders.
Reviewers' evaluations should be objective.
The language and style used by the referees should not offend the author.
Reviewers should ensure that all information regarding the submitted manuscripts remains confidential until the manuscript is published.
Reviewers should notify the editor if they notice copyright infringement or plagiarism in the work they review.
A reviewer who feels inadequate to review an article or who feels that he/she cannot complete the review within the specified time should withdraw from the review process.
During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following points: Does the article contain new and important information? / Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article? / Is the methodology described in a coherent and understandable manner? / Are the interpretations and conclusions substantiated by the findings? / Are adequate references given to other studies in the field? / Is the language quality adequate?

Preliminary Review, Spell Check and Plagiarism Check
The manuscript is reviewed by the Editor in terms of academic writing and journal publication principles. The preliminary review period is maximum 15 days. Manuscripts deemed appropriate are forwarded to the Manuscript Editor to be checked for plagiarism, language rules and compliance with the ISNAD System. Manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using the iThenticate programme. Spell check and plagiarism scanning are completed within a maximum of 15 days. The plagiarism similarity rate must be less than 25%. If the similarity rate is 1%, but citation and quotation are not done properly, plagiarism may still be in question. In this respect, citation and quotation rules must be known and carefully applied by the author:

Citation/Indirect Quotation: If a citation is made to an opinion, discussion or determination in a source and the cited opinion is put on the line with the citing researcher's own words, a footnote mark (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. If the reference is to a certain page or page range of the work, the page number should be given. If there is a reference to the entire work, that is, if the reference is made to a degree that requires the reader to examine the entire work, the source should be indicated in the footnote after the phrase ‘bk. on this subject’, ‘bk. about this opinion’, ‘bk. about this discussion’ or just ‘bk.’.

Quotation/Iquotation: If the relevant part of the source is taken exactly as it is, without touching the point and comma, the quoted part is ‘given in double quotation marks’ and the source is indicated by giving the footnote number (1) at the end. Quotations that exist in the directly quoted text are written using ‘single quotation marks’. If the directly quoted part is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it is shown in a separate paragraph. In order to distinguish long quotations from the main text, it should be preferred to write in a font size one smaller than the normal text size and to indent the entire paragraph from the left at the beginning of the line. In direct quotations, some words, sentences and paragraphs may be omitted, provided that they do not change the meaning. Ellipses (...) are placed in place of the omitted parts. It is not correct to write the part quoted verbatim from a source without enclosing it in ‘double quotation marks’ and to be contented with just writing the source at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be accused of violation of publication ethics (plagiarism).

Field Editor Review
The manuscript, which passes through the Preliminary Review, Plagiarism Scan and Spelling Check stages, is examined by the relevant field editor in terms of problematic and academic language and style. This review is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Referee Process (Academic Evaluation)
After being reviewed by the field editor, the manuscript is submitted to the evaluation of at least two external referees who have a doctoral thesis, book or article on the subject. The referee process is carried out in confidentiality within the framework of double blind refereeing. The referee is requested to state his/her opinion and opinion on the manuscript either on the text or to justify it with an explanation on the online referee form. The author is given the right to object and defend his/her views if he/she disagrees with the referee's opinions. The field editor ensures mutual communication between the author and the referee while maintaining confidentiality. If both referee reports are favourable, the editor decides on acceptance. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the editor sends the manuscript to a third referee. Manuscripts can be published with the favourable decision of at least two referees. The publication of book reviews is decided as a result of the evaluation of at least one internal referee (relevant field editors and/or members of the editorial board).

Proofreading Phase
If the referees request corrections to be made in the text they have reviewed, the relevant reports are sent to the author and the author is asked to correct his/her work. The author makes the corrections in the Word program with the ‘Track Changes’ feature turned on or indicates the changes in the text in red. Submits the corrected text to the field editor.

Field Editor/Control
The field editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections to the text.

Referee Check
The reviewer checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

English Language Check
The manuscripts that pass the Turkish language control are examined by the English Language Editor and, if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The English language editor's control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Typesetting and Layout Phase
The manuscripts decided to be published by the editor are prepared for publication by typesetting and layout and sent to the author for review. This stage takes a maximum of 15 days.

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