Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to our journal undergo a multi-stage, double-blind, and at least three-reviewer evaluation process to ensure compliance with scientific integrity, publication ethics, and quality standards as described below.

1. Preliminary Review and Technical Control

Submitted works are first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or Field Editors based on the following criteria:

• Compliance with the journal’s scope,
• Adherence to writing and language rules,
• Presence of Ethics Committee approval and relevant declarations,
• Similarity Rate: Scanned via iThenticate software; works with a similarity rate exceeding 20% are returned,
• Technical file checks: Font, image quality, citation format, etc.

Manuscripts found insufficient at this stage are rejected without entering the peer review process (desk rejection).

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary review are sent to at least three independent reviewers selected based on their expertise. Neutrality is ensured by considering factors such as conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations, or past collaborations.

• Double-blind review is applied: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.
• In some cases, an internal reviewer (field editor or editorial board member) may be assigned alongside two external reviewers.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Process

Reviewers are expected to provide scientific and constructive feedback on the following headings:

• Originality and level of contribution,
• Methodological adequacy,
• Validity and interpretation of findings,
• Use of references and citation deficiencies,
• Language and expression,
• Ethical compliance.

Reviewers submit one of the following four recommendations:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The reviewer evaluation period is generally 2–4 weeks, and the entire evaluation process is typically completed within 3–6 months. This period may be extended during peak times.

4. Editorial Evaluation and Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or Field Editor makes the final decision in light of the reviewer opinions. The editor may assign additional reviewers in the following cases:

• Conflicting reviewer opinions,
• Uncertainty regarding a scientifically critical issue,
• When a reviewer’s opinion is needed after revision.

Editorial decisions are final and supported by scientific justification.

5. Author Revision and Second Evaluation

In cases where a revision is requested, the author(s) are expected to submit:

• A detailed response to reviewer comments,
• A new version of the manuscript incorporating the corrections,
• A Response to Reviewers letter.

Authors may explain their reasons if they choose not to address specific reviewer comments. If necessary, the revised manuscript is sent back to the reviewers.

6. Final Evaluation and Publication Process

• Once all corrections and controls are complete, the Editorial Board makes the final decision.
• Accepted manuscripts proceed to typesetting, language editing, and page layout.
• The processes and files of rejected manuscripts are archived but not published.

Principles of Ethics and Confidentiality

• Confidentiality: All evaluations are confidential. Reviewers may not share the works with others or comment on the content.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must decline the evaluation by informing the editor in cases of conflict of interest, lack of time, or subjects outside their expertise.
• Integrity: Information and ideas obtained during the evaluation process cannot be used for personal gain.
• Ethical Violations: Reviewers are obliged to inform the editor if they notice ethical violations (plagiarism, data manipulation, unethical experiments, etc.).

The peer review process implemented in this journal is carried out in full compliance with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Council of Higher Education Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive.