Introduction

Istanbul Gelisim University Journal of Social Sciences conducts its evaluation process in accordance with the principles of double-blind peer review.

All research articles and review articles published in the journal are subject to peer review.

Peer review is carried out by at least two independent academics who hold a doctoral degree and are experts in the relevant field of study.

Peer Review Policy

Each manuscript submitted to Istanbul Gelisim University Journal of Social Sciences is subject to an initial screening by the Editor to determine whether it is suitable for the peer review process.

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary evaluation are assigned to a Section Editor who is a subject-area expert and a member of the editorial board. The Section Editor reviews the manuscript in terms of its scientific scope, compliance with the author guidelines, and adherence to journal policies. At this stage, a revision process may be conducted between the author and the editorial office. Once approved, the manuscript proceeds to the peer review stage. Manuscripts that are not brought into compliance with the author guidelines and journal policies are returned to the authors.

If a member of the editorial board is listed as an author of the manuscript or if any conflict of interest arises, the process is handled by another member of the Editorial Board.

Editors base their decisions on the reviewer reports and make the final decision accordingly. Any serious and well-justified issue raised in a reviewer report or in the editorial evaluation may result in rejection of the manuscript or its return to the author for revision.

Authors receive the editorial decision and the reviewer evaluation reports through the system.

Selection of Reviewers

The selection of reviewers is of critical importance in the publication process. This selection is based on multiple criteria, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflicts of interest, and prior performance. Promptness, diligence, sound reasoning, and collegiality are highly desirable attributes.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers constitute the fundamental assurance of the scientific publishing process. Their expert evaluations ensure that editorial decisions are grounded in scientific principles and support the validity, methodological rigor, and reliability of published research. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their subject expertise and methodological competence and bear direct responsibility for the assessments included in their reports. The peer review process is based on mutual trust and confidentiality among authors, reviewers, and editors.

Although generative artificial intelligence tools are rapidly evolving, they may present limitations such as incomplete access to up-to-date literature, the generation of inaccurate or biased content, and misinterpretation of context. Furthermore, manuscripts submitted for evaluation may contain original and sensitive information that must not be shared with third parties. Accordingly, reviewers are expected not to upload manuscript files to any generative AI platform and to protect all content in accordance with confidentiality principles.

If any part of the evaluation of the claims presented in a manuscript has been supported by an artificial intelligence tool, reviewers are requested to transparently disclose the use of such tools in their review report.

Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are expected to obtain at least two reviewer reports for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analyses of primary research. In certain exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent reviewer reports. In such cases—especially in interdisciplinary studies—care is taken to appoint more than two reviewers where necessary and to ensure appropriate diversity among independent reviewers due to the multidimensional nature of the subject matter.

Editors make publication decisions based on at least two reviewer reports. When making a decision based on reviewer reports, editors are expected to proceed only if the reports meet the standards specified in the system. As of 01 January 2026, reviewer reports must be written in English and should provide constructive critical evaluations of the manuscript, particularly regarding the appropriateness of the methods used, the accuracy of the results, and whether the conclusions are supported by the findings.

If reviewer reports are deemed insufficient, the editorial office may request additional reports or assign additional reviewers to the manuscript. For manuscripts requiring revision, the manuscript files and reviewer reports are forwarded to the authors, and the process continues until the reviewers issue a final acceptance or rejection decision.

Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analyses of primary research, such as editorials and book reviews, may be accepted without undergoing peer review. Such manuscripts should be evaluated by the relevant Section Editor(s) if the topic falls within their area of expertise. If not, they must be evaluated by at least one independent expert reviewer or a member of the Editorial Board.

Peer reviewer diversity is aligned with the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and efforts are made to ensure diversity in the demographic composition of reviewers. Editors are advised to consider geographical regions, gender identities, racial and ethnic groups, and other groups when inviting reviewers.

Transparent Peer Review

Istanbul Gelisim University Journal of Social Sciences applies a double-blind peer review model. During the evaluation process, reviewers cannot see the identities of the authors, and likewise, authors cannot see the identities of the reviewers. Upon publication of the relevant issue, the names of the reviewers are announced in the journal.

Peer Reviewer Guidelines

The primary purpose of peer review is to provide the Editor with the information necessary to make a fair and evidence-based decision in line with the journal’s publication criteria. Review reports should also assist authors in revising their manuscripts to a level suitable for publication.

Reviewers must adhere to the principles set out in COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts solely in accordance with the journal’s publication criteria.

Preparation for Publication

Manuscripts that successfully complete the review process are subjected to language editing and proofreading by the language editor and, upon approval by the Section Editor, are scheduled for publication in the relevant issue.