Article Evaluation and Publication Process

1. Application Phase

-The author uploads the article to the Dergipark system. At this stage, the author undertakes that the article is not under evaluation in another journal. 
-The secretariat reviews the manuscript from a formal point of view and, if necessary, asks for corrections from the author about the article writing rules and citation methods. Following the pre-checking stage, the journal secretariat receives an iThenticate similarity report.
-Editor(s) may evaluate the article in terms of the importance of the topic, methodology and compatibility with the scope of the journal and may ask the author for editing or reject the article directly. 
-The article is referred to the Area editor. The Area Editor re-evaluates the article in terms of its potential to contribute to the Area and its methodology, and may ask the author to edit the article or reject it outright if deemed necessary. The Area Editor sends the manuscript to at least two referees (three referees if deemed necessary) who are experts in the Area, and the double-blind peer review of the manuscript begins. 
In the selection of referees, Area Editors are obliged to ensure that there is no relationship between the author/authors and the person to be appointed as a referee, especially "consultancy relationship", co-authorship, etc. Although it is not an obligation, care is taken not to send referees to referees working in the same department as the author. 
-If the author fails to make the requested formal corrections at any stage of the submission process, the manuscript will be rejected without being included in the refereeing process.
 

For manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening and are deemed suitable to proceed to the peer-review process, an Article Processing Charge (APC) is requested from the corresponding author. Payment details are communicated to the corresponding author via email, and the peer-review process is initiated only after the payment has been completed. See the Price Policy.

2. Double Blind Peer Review Phase

-The referees is obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process. 
-Referees are expected to answer the following questions during the evaluation phase: 
        1. Is the Turkish and English title of the manuscript consistent with its content?
        2. Does the Turkish and English abstract reflect the article accurately and concisely?
        3. Is the study appropriate to the field specified in the title?
        4. Does the study contribute to the related discipline and does the study express a scientific value?
        5. Are the sources related to the subject adequate and up-to-date?
        6. Are the data and research method used in the study appropriate for the purpose?
        7. Is the study comprehensible in terms of language and spelling rules?
        8. Is the conclusion section sufficiently analyzed?
        9. Did the author(s) provide a new contribution and value regarding the subject researched?
        10. Are there any cases of plagiarism or verbatim quotation in the study?

-The referees can show their suggestions to the author on the text of the article and give suggestions for corrections on the text if they deem necessary. They can make suggestions to the editor about the article. 
Referees re-evaluate the articles for which they decide Major Revision after the author's correction. 
-In order for the editors to make an acceptance decision, at least two referees must recommend "Acceptance" or "Minor Revision: No Need for Reconsideration" recommendation. 
-Manuscripts with two rejection decisions are rejected.

Scholarly Evaluation Process and Reviewer Honorarium

History Studies maintains a rigorous peer-review mechanism to ensure the scientific integrity and methodological depth of all published research. The most critical element in meeting international indexing standards (Scopus, WoS, AHCI, etc.) is the in-depth and analytical review provided by our referees.

1. Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers are expected to conduct a multi-dimensional analysis of the manuscripts and provide a detailed report based on the following parameters:

• Historical Methodology: Robustness of the research framework within the discipline of history.
• Primary Source Engagement: Utilization and interpretation of archival records and primary source materials.
• Literature and Originality: Engagement with current international scholarship, originality of the thesis, and contribution to the field.
• Scientific Integrity and Ethics: Full compliance with academic honesty and publication ethics.

2. Reviewer Honorarium: Upon completion of the review process and the submission of a detailed scholarly report based on the criteria above, a honorarium of 50 USD per article will be provided to the reviewer.

• Important Note: This payment is entirely independent of the reviewer's final decision (Accept/Reject/Revision). The sole criterion for the honorarium is the academic depth of the report and the thorough analytical examination of the manuscript.
   

3. Publication Phase

-For manuscripts that receive an acceptance decision, a correction request is opened via the DergiPark system for the corresponding author to upload the bibliography.
-The manuscript is then forwarded to the layout and language editing stages. At this stage, the author may be requested to make further revisions where necessary.
-Accepted manuscripts are published online under the early access model shortly after acceptance. Subsequently, they are assigned to an issue based on their submission dates and included in the final issue layout upon publication of the relevant issue.

The Editor-in-Chief retains full authority at all stages of the editorial and peer-review processes and may, where deemed necessary, reject a manuscript even if it has received acceptance recommendations from two reviewers.

The entire evaluation and publication process takes approximately 16-24 weeks on average.