As soon as the article is uploaded to the system, an email is sent to the author informing him that the article has reached the journal secretariat.

After each article submitted for evaluation is scanned in the plagiarism program, it is carefully read by the assistant editors to determine whether it is in accordance with the publication policies, scope, and theme of the journal in terms of academic and ethical standards. Those found to be unsuitable are returned to their authors with justification without further evaluation.

Those who meet the criteria in question are evaluated in terms of language, expression, and style. In this context, the articles that do not require intensive interventions are sent to the editor-in-chief after the assistant editor has made the necessary corrections. Articles that contain intense problems in terms of language, expression, style, and grammar are reported and presented to the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief requests that the author review the article, fix the problems in question, make the necessary corrections, and send it again.

The associate editor's review process takes one week for each article.

The editor-in-chief reviews all the articles evaluated by the assistant editors and makes the necessary corrections. Following this process, it separates the articles according to their fields and anonymously directs them to the field editors.

The field editor determines which writing type (original, compilation, research, criticism, book promotion, and evaluation) the article belongs to by subjecting each article to a rigorous evaluation in terms of its suitability for the field, terminological adequacy, and style within a week. When there is a dissenting opinion with the author about the genre, this situation is reported to the editor to be forwarded to the author. The editor provides an agreement between the author and the field editor by informing the author about the subject.

The articles that are reviewed by the editor and the field editor and prepared for referee evaluation are sent to two referees related to the field to be evaluated and reported within 15 days at the latest.

Referees, the relevant article: "CAN BE PUBLISHED" or "CANNOT BE PUBLISHED BECAUSE IT IS INSUFFICIENT" by evaluating the source and literature on the subject in terms of originality, contribution to the field, effectiveness of the method used, compliance with ethical rules, holistic presentation of findings and results, research level, style, and language used, AND IT CANNOT BE PUBLISHED BECAUSE IT HAS OCCURRED AGAINST SCIENTIFIC ETHICS" or MATER CORRECTIONS'. Authors are informed about the reported articles by email.

If at least one of the two referees makes a negative decision, the article is forwarded to the third referee. As a result of the evaluations made, the article that is decided to be PUBLISHED by at least two referees is placed in the most appropriate order for publication. In the event of a negative opinion from at least two referees, the article is returned to the author with the relevant reports.

The articles for which corrections are suggested are requested to be uploaded to the system again within 30 working days after the author makes the necessary checks and corrections. Articles not uploaded within this period will be removed from the system.

The articles, which are checked by the assistant editors to see whether the necessary corrections are made or not, are sent to the editor-in-chief.

In cases where the editor-in-chief deems that the referee's evaluation is not done in an objective, consistent, and healthy manner, he consults the opinions and thoughts of the editorial and advisory boards. If the members of the editorial and advisory boards about the field have the same opinion as the editor-in-chief, the article is directed to a different referee. A necessary warning is given to the relevant referee in an appropriate style. In cases of repetition, the name of the relevant referee is removed from the list.

In the event of opposition on various issues at any stage of the evaluation and publication process, the relevant article is submitted for the approval and opinions of the publication and advisory board. After the agreement is reached, the publication process continues.

The article that is decided to be published is directed to the layout by the editor-in-chief. It is then sent back to the author to review the final version.

The evaluation process starts the day the article is received by the journal secretariat, and the article owner is given feedback on the decision within 90 days at the latest. The referee has the right to request more than one correction and to see corrections after corrections.