The publication policy of IBAD Journal of Social Sciences is determined by the Editorial Board. The primary criteria for evaluating submitted manuscripts are academic impartiality and scientific quality. The journal follows a double-blind peer review process. Each manuscript that successfully completes the review process is assigned a DOI number and may be published in early view on the journal’s website with volume and page numbers. All processes are conducted with full transparency.

Authors submitting to IBAD Journal of Social Sciences are expected to consider the feedback and suggestions provided by reviewers and the Editorial Board. If they disagree with certain points, they have the right to submit a reasoned objection. Peer review reports are stored digitally in the DergiPark system. By submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors are deemed to have accepted the journal’s peer review policies and procedures.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to make minor revisions that do not alter the essence of an accepted manuscript. If deemed necessary, the Board may also appoint a guest field editor. An author may submit only one manuscript at a time, including co-authored works. Additionally, an author may have no more than one paper published in a single issue. Once a manuscript is published, the author may submit a new manuscript for the following issue.

Editorial Board members are also permitted to submit manuscripts to the journal. However, in such cases, they do not participate in any stage of the editorial process for their own submissions. While the manuscript is undergoing peer review, its authors who also serve as editors have their editorial roles suspended to prevent access to the review process. This ensures the integrity of the double-blind peer review system. The journal ensures that in the last two issues, no more than 25% of published research articles have at least one author who is an editor, Editorial Board member, or reviewer.
IBAD Journal of Social Sciences is published twice a year, in August and December.

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:

- 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.

- 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.

IBAD Journal of Social Sciences accepts submissions in the following categories:
Translations and Book Reviews (Evaluated by the Editorial Board)
Scientific article translations and book reviews written in foreign languages are reviewed by the Editorial Board. These submissions are either accepted for publication or returned to the author. The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor examines the submission and presents a review report to the Editorial Board. Based on the evaluation, the board may request revisions or improvements from the authors. The review process for such submissions takes a maximum of 45 days. For Evaluation Criteria for Translations and Book Reviews click here.

Peer-Reviewed Articles (Subject to Peer-Review)
Peer-reviewed articles include research papers and review articles that align with the journal’s aims and scope. Submissions in this section undergo evaluation through the Double-Blind Peer Review process, following the steps outlined in the Review and Evaluation Process. Click here for Peer Review Criteria.

Evaluation Process and Timeline for Research and Review Articles

The peer-review process of IBAD Journal of Social Sciences consists of two main stages: preliminary review and editorial review. In the preliminary review, the candidate manuscript is examined by the editorial office in terms of formatting and plagiarism similarity rate. In the editorial review, the editor-in-chief or an assigned editor evaluates the candidate manuscript for its compliance with the journal's publication principles, ethical standards, and its alignment with the journal's aims and scope. If deemed suitable for peer review, the subject editor appointed by the editor-in-chief assigns at least two reviewers to the manuscript. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the criteria outlined in the journal's peer-review report. If one of the reviewers provides a negative report, the manuscript is sent to an additional reviewer(s). The article must receive positive reports from at least two reviewers to be published. Accepted manuscripts are forwarded to the language editor, followed by typesetting and layout. The manuscript is then sent to the author for final review and subsequently undergoes a final read-through by the editor-in-chief or an assigned editor before publication.

Detailed Process

The candidate article is assessed for its compliance with formatting and plagiarism similarity thresholds during the preliminary review phase. The secretariat reviews the similarity report obtained using iThenticate, Turnitin, or intihal.net software. The similarity report should be under 25% (30% in special cases). Articles with high similarity reports or deemed inappropriate in terms of formatting are returned to the author. This review is completed within a maximum of 15 days.
Editorial Review

If the candidate article passes the preliminary review, it is reviewed by the chief editor or an appointed editor for compliance with journal publishing principles, ethical standards, and the journal's aims and scope. For Editorial Review Criteria click here. Articles that do not comply with the journal's policies are returned to the author. This review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. If deemed appropriate, the peer review process for the candidate article begins. The following steps are followed in the peer review process:
1. The candidate articles are sent for evaluation to at least two reviewers known for their work in the relevant field. Reviewers are asked to report any conflicts of interest regarding the article they are reviewing. Reviewers are requested to evaluate the article according to the principles outlined in the journal's review report. We strive to complete the peer review process in a timely manner; however, this depends on the availability of editors and reviewers. Therefore, no guarantees can be made regarding the duration of the review process. If reviewers do not submit their reports or withdraw, new reviewers may be assigned.
2. Reviewer reports are reviewed, and a decision on acceptance, rejection, or revision is made. The decision is communicated to the author. If the article is accepted, it is prepared for publication. If rejected, it is returned to the author. If a revision is requested, the reviewer reports are sent to the author. The author is asked to make revisions based on the reviewers' and editorial board's suggestions, highlighting changes and adding explanations in the document for the reviewers and editorial board to see, and/or providing a separate document detailing responses to the reviewers. This process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.
3. The authors of articles requiring revision make the necessary changes, considering all reviewer reports, including those from reviewers who suggested rejection, and send the revised manuscript with the required explanations or additional files. (See: Sample Revision File and Sample Response to Reviewer File). The maximum revision period for the author is 30 days. Additional time may be granted with the approval of the editorial board upon the request of the corresponding author. However, the author may submit the revision before the deadline.
4. It is checked whether the authors have made the required revisions. The revision file and other relevant documents are sent to all the reviewers who made the revision decision, or at least to two appropriate reviewers, for them to prepare their final reports. This process is completed within a maximum of 15 days. We strive to complete the peer review process in a timely manner; however, this depends on the availability of editors and reviewers. Therefore, no guarantees can be made regarding the duration of the review process.
The reviewer who made the rejection decision will not receive the author's revision file. If reviewers who requested revision do not provide their final decision regarding acceptance or rejection in subsequent rounds, or if the editorial board evaluates that the article is not mature enough in terms of content and quality, the subject editor may assign new reviewers to the article.
The evaluation process may repeat several times until a final decision of acceptance or rejection is made. The final decision regarding whether the article will be published is determined by the chief editor or an appointed editor and communicated to the author. If accepted, the article is prepared for publication. If rejected, it is returned 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 the chief editor or an appointed editor 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.). After the article is accepted, it is reviewed by the Language Editors. The language editor's review process takes a maximum of 15 days. Necessary corrections are made during this stage. Subsequently, the article undergoes typesetting and layout adjustments to be prepared for publication and is sent back to the author for final review and approval. This process is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The final version of the article, as submitted by the author, is reviewed one last time by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Editor, and then it is finalized for publication. This final stage is also completed within a maximum of 15 days.
For manuscripts submitted to the IBAD Journal of Social Sciences, authors take into account the critiques and suggestions of the reviewers and Editorial Board. If there are any disagreements, authors have the right to object with justifications. Reviewer reports are stored digitally in the Dergipark system. See Repository Policy

Some authors may request the Editor to reconsider a rejection decision. As per policy, such appeals are considered secondary to the normal workload. In practice, this means that decisions on appeals typically take several weeks. Only one appeal is allowed per manuscript, and appeals can only be made after the peer review process. A rejection decision will only be overturned if the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor is convinced that the original decision contained a significant error. An appeal is justified if a reviewer has made substantial factual errors or has demonstrated bias—provided that overturning that reviewer's opinion would change the original decision. Similarly, disagreements over factual matters do not need to be resolved unless they are critical to the outcome. If an appeal warrants further consideration, a Member of the Editorial Board may request a response from the authors and, if necessary, send the revised manuscript for further peer review.

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

- Preliminary Review: 15 days (max.)

- Editorial Board processing time (for each stage): 15 days (max.)

- Peer review time : We strive to complete the peer review process in a timely manner; however, this depends on the availability of editors and reviewers. Therefore, no guarantees can be made regarding the duration of the review process.
- Author revision time (for each stage): 30 days (An extension may be granted at the request of the corresponding author, subject to the approval of the Editorial Board).

Under normal circumstances, the entire review process for a manuscript is expected to be completed between 40 and 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. We strive to complete the peer review process in a timely manner; however, this depends on the availability of editors and reviewers. Therefore, no guarantees can be made regarding the duration of the review process.

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 with dergiparkdestek@tubitak.gov.tr. For suggestions or feedback, contact with dergipark@ulakbim.gov.tr. For contacting the journal editor, send email to 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. 

Definitions:
Editorial Board: Consists of the Editor-in-Chief, Editor, Assistant Editors, Ethics Editor, Statistical Editor, Language Editors, Field Editors, and other editors. It manages the journal's publication and peer-review processes in accordance with the journal's publication and evaluation policies set by the Publication Board.
Editor-in-Chief: Serves as the head of the Editorial Board. Responsible for managing the journal as defined by the Publication Board.
Assistant Editor: Assists the Editor-in-Chief/Editor. Supports all tasks and processes related to the management of the journal as determined by the Publication Board.
Field Editor: Composed of experts in specific fields. Oversees peer-review and publication processes for topics within their area of expertise upon request from the Editor-in-Chief.
Publication Board: Composed of experts in their respective fields. Establishes the journal's publication and evaluation policies and shares them with the Editorial Board.
Advisory Board: Consists of experts in their respective fields. Provides guidance to the Editorial and Publication Boards upon request by sharing their knowledge and experience.
Ethics Editor: A specialist in ethics. Reviews articles for ethical compliance.
Statistical Editor: An expert in statistics. Examines the statistical data in articles for accuracy and appropriateness.
Language Editor: A specialist in language and literature. Reviews articles for linguistic quality and clarity.
Secretariat: Conducts all correspondence for the journal centrally in accordance with decisions made by the Editorial Board. Handles correspondence with editors, reviewers, authors, and readers. Also manages tasks such as layout and publication preparation, submission of journal issues to national and international indexes, and other communication-related responsibilities of the journal.