Desk Review Process

Peer Review Process

1. Manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening are forwarded to the Subject Editor, who conducts a general editorial assessment of the manuscript’s originality, methodology, significance, ethical compliance, and suitability for peer review. The purpose of this assessment is to ensure that only manuscripts meeting the journal’s basic scientific and ethical standards proceed to the peer-review stage. Manuscripts that meet the Subject Editor’s assessment are then sent to at least two independent reviewers for a detailed scientific evaluation.
2. Reviewers assess manuscripts based on a comprehensive set of criteria, including the originality and contribution of the work to the field, the importance and clarity of the research question, the adequacy and rigor of the methodology, the validity of the findings and interpretations, the extent to which the study engages with relevant literature, adherence to academic language and writing standards, and whether the title and abstract accurately and clearly reflect the content.
3. Reviewers submit their evaluations to the Subject Editor in a clear and well-reasoned manner using the Standard Evaluation Form available through the Dergipark portal. In each round of review, the reviewers also indicate whether the revised manuscript should be returned to them for re-evaluation. However, if the Subject Editor considers further review necessary, the manuscript may be sent back to the reviewers, even if they did not request it.
4. The Subject Editor examines the reviewer reports and forwards them, together with their own assessment, anonymously to the corresponding author.
5. The author prepares a separate ‘Response to Reviewers’ file, in which each reviewer comment is addressed individually. In line with the reviewer suggestions, the author makes the necessary revisions in the reviewed version of the manuscript using Word’s ‘Track Changes’ function, or provides a reasoned justification for any objections to the requested revisions in the response file.
6. The author then submits the revised manuscript to the Subject Editor, who checks whether the requested revisions have been adequately addressed.
7. A manuscript can be considered for publication only when it receives positive recommendations from at least two reviewers. If one of the two reviewers provides a negative evaluation, the manuscript may be referred to a third reviewer for an additional independent assessment.
8. Once positive reviews are received and the Subject Editor recommends publication, the manuscript is submitted to the Editor-in-Chief for the final decision.
9. Manuscripts that have passed peer review and editorial approval are then examined by the Language and Copy Editor for the respective language (English or Turkish), and the author may be asked to make further corrections if necessary.
10. After completing the linguistic and technical checks, the manuscript undergoes typesetting and layout preparation before final publication