IBAD Journal of Social Sciences follows a Double-Blind Peer Review Model as its article evaluation policy. This model is a widely used peer review method in academic publishing, where both the authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed from each other. The purpose of this process is to ensure a more impartial and fair evaluation. The key features of the model are:

1.Anonymity

- The identity of the reviewers is kept anonymous from the authors, ensuring that authors do not know who is evaluating their work.

- The identity of the authors is also hidden from the reviewers, allowing the reviewers to assess the paper without being influenced by the author’s academic title, institution, or previous works.

2. Advantages

- Impartiality: Reviewers focus on the scientific content of the work, independent of the authors’ identities.

- Reduced Bias: The personal or institutional background of the authors does not influence the evaluation process.

- Fairness: Provides an equal evaluation environment, especially for younger or lesser-known researchers.

Therefore, the Double-Blind Peer Review Model is an important step toward enhancing the ethical and quality standards of academic publishing.

Secretary Review

The candidate article undergoes an initial screening by the secretariat to ensure its compliance with the journal’s publication guidelines. A similarity report generated using tools like iThenticate, Turnitin, or intihal.net is reviewed. The expected similarity score should be below 25% (30% in special cases).

Editorial Review

Once the article passes the initial screening, it is assessed by the editorial board in terms of the journal’s aims and scope. If deemed appropriate, a field editor is assigned to the article, and the peer review process begins. The field editor asks reviewers to confirm whether they approve their reports and to declare any conflicts of interest regarding the article. The final decision is made by the Editorial Board after the peer review process. The peer review process involves the following steps:

1. The candidate article is sent by the field editor to two or more reviewers known for their expertise in the subject area. If any reviewer fails to submit a report on time, additional reviewers may be assigned. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the article in accordance with the journal’s guidelines. (See: Reviewer Report Sample)

2. Articles that are deemed to meet the necessary quality and quantity criteria are sent to the author along with either all or at least two relevant peer review reports. The author is asked to highlight the changes made in the manuscript so that reviewers can easily identify them, and/or to include clarifications in a separate file titled "Response to Reviewer." If any reviewer fails to submit their report on time, the field editor may assign new reviewers.

3. The author considers all reviewer comments, including those from rejecting reviewers, makes the necessary revisions, and submits the revised manuscript to the editor. (See: Sample Revision File and Sample Response to Reviewer File)

4. The field editor checks whether the author has made the required revisions in the manuscript. The editor sends the revised manuscript to the reviewers who previously provided feedback, or to at least two relevant reviewers, and asks them to prepare their final reports.

5. The reviewer who gave a rejection decision does not receive the revised manuscript.

6. Reviewers verify whether the author has addressed the requested revisions and provide recommendations for the final decision. Reviewers then submit their final reports to the field editor. Reviewers may recommend rejection, revision, or acceptance.

7. The Editorial Board reviews the peer reports and makes a decision on whether to accept, reject, or request further revisions. The decision is communicated to the author.

8. If the Editorial Board requests revisions, the article is sent back to the author for necessary corrections. The author is asked to highlight the changes made in the manuscript so that reviewers can easily identify them, and/or to include clarifications in a separate file titled "Response to Reviewer."

The evaluation process may be repeated several times until a final decision on acceptance or rejection is made. The final decision is taken by the Editorial Board and communicated to the author.

9. If the reviewers requesting revisions do not issue a final decision of acceptance or rejection in subsequent rounds, and if the Editorial Board determines that the article has not yet reached an adequate level of quality, the field editor may assign new reviewers. The final decision regarding the publication of the article is determined at this stage and communicated to the author.

For a paper to be published, it must receive approval from at least two reviewers. However, the acceptance of a paper by two reviewers does not guarantee its publication. The decisive factor in determining whether a paper will be published is the editorial board's assessment that the paper has been sufficiently reviewed by independent reviewers in terms of both quality and quantity, and that the author has made the necessary revisions accordingly (see Figure 1). The field editor and the editorial board manage all processes transparently from a single centralized point. Authors submitting papers to IBAD Journal of Social Sciences consider the critiques and suggestions of reviewers and the Editorial Board. If there are points of disagreement, they have the right to appeal, providing reasons for their objections. Once a paper is accepted, it is reviewed by language editors. Necessary corrections are made. Accepted papers are then typeset and formatted for publication, after which they are sent back to the author for review. A final proofreading is done by the chief editor before the paper is published. IBAD Journal of Social Sciences adopts a double-blind peer-review process during the evaluation. Review reports are stored digitally in the Dergipark system. 

The peer review process for IBAD Journal of Social Sciences generally follows the timeline below:

- Secretariat preliminary review and plagiarism check: 7 days

- Editor Assignment: 7 days

- Field editor processing time (for each stage): 7 days

- Peer review time (for each stage): 15 days
- Author revision time (for each stage): 15 days

- Editorial Board processing time (for each stage): 7 days

- Language Editor processing time: 7 days

- Layout and preparation for publication: 7 days

The processing times for reviewers or authors can be extended with editor approval if requested. Under normal circumstances, the entire review process for a manuscript is expected to be completed within 40-60 days. However, the review process may take longer due to reasons such as delays in responses from reviewers, the need for reassignment of reviewers, or it may be shortened if reviewers submit reports before the final deadline or if authors complete required revisions promptly. An author can have at most one article published in a single issue.

Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.

Reviewer Interaction: Reviewers can only communicate with editors.

If the published issue is not automatically indexed, the metadata of the article will be sent by the secretariat to the relevant indexed databases within 60 days.

Before submitting a manuscript, authors may encounter login issues. Manuscripts cannot be submitted without logging in. Please confirm whether you are logged in. If you face issues with the system, try again using different browsers like Explorer, Chrome, etc. For technical problems (software-related), please contact dergiparkdestek@tubitak.gov.tr. For suggestions or feedback, contact dergipark@ulakbim.gov.tr. For contacting the journal editor, email ibadjournaleditor@gmail.com. To view a video tutorial for submitting articles through Dergipark, click here.

By submitting a manuscript to IBAD Journal of Social Sciences, authors accept the journal's peer review conditions and process.