Evaluation Principles
1) Only articles that have not been previously published or are not currently under consideration for publication in another journal and have been approved by all authors will be considered for evaluation.
2) Submitted articles that pass the initial check are scanned for plagiarism using the iThenticate software.
3) Imgelem conducts a double-blind peer review process. All submissions are initially evaluated by the editor for suitability for the journal. Articles deemed appropriate are then sent to at least two independent expert reviewers to evaluate the scientific quality of the manuscript.
4) The Editor-in-Chief evaluates articles regardless of the authors' ethnic background, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, or political philosophy. Ensures that submitted articles undergo a fair double-blind peer review process.
5) The Editor-in-Chief does not allow conflicts of interest among authors, editors, and reviewers.
6) The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final.
7) Editors do not participate in decisions regarding articles written by themselves, family members, or colleagues, or related to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all regular procedures of the journal.
Reviewers should ensure that all information pertaining to submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published and report any instances of copyright infringement or plagiarism by the authors to the editor.
If a reviewer does not feel qualified to review an article on the subject matter or cannot provide a timely response, they should inform the editor and request not to be included in the review process.
During the review process, the editor explicitly states that the articles sent for review are the private property of the authors and that this communication is privileged. Reviewers and members of the editorial board should not discuss articles with others.
Care should be taken to maintain the anonymity of reviewers.

Evaluation Process
Type of Peer Review: Double-Blind Peer Review
Double-Blind Peer Review: After plagiarism check, suitable articles are evaluated by the chief editor in terms of originality, methodology, significance of the addressed topic, and compatibility with the scope of the journal. The editor ensures that articles pass through a fair double-blind peer review process, and if the article complies with formatting guidelines, it is sent for evaluation by at least two reviewers from domestic and/or international sources. Upon completion of the review process, reviewers may approve the publication of the article after any necessary revisions are made by the authors.
Review Time: Pre-publication
Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Time Spent in Review: The time elapsed until the initial decision for research articles included in the review process of Imgelem is approximately 20 days.
Acceptance Rate: We publish approximately 50% of the articles submitted to our journal.
Plagiarism Check: Yes - iThenticate is used to scan articles for plagiarism prevention.
Number of Reviewers for Each Article: Two-three Allowed Time: 10 days. This time period can be extended by adding 5 days.
Decision: For a manuscript to be accepted for publication by the Editor, it must receive approval from at least two reviewers.
Ethical Violation Suspicions: Reviewers should inform the Editor if they suspect research or publication misconduct. The Editor is responsible for conducting necessary procedures in accordance with COPE guidelines.

• The Chief Editor examines the research article on the day it is submitted, and if they believe the article is worth further consideration, they forward it to an associate editor for a more detailed review. Associate editors typically read each research article thoroughly. We aim to reach an initial decision for all papers within two or three weeks, but usually, the initial decision is made within a few days of submission. If we do not believe Imgelem is the right journal for the work, we promptly inform the authors so they can submit their work elsewhere without delay. Common reasons for rejection at this stage include insufficient originality and the topic falling outside the scope of the journal.

• The next step for your research article is our Editorial Board meeting. Members will read your article and discuss its significance, originality, and scientific quality. We primarily focus on the research question to make editorial decisions for research articles. Even if the subject matter of the article is relevant, current, and significant to the journal's scope, we may reject it if there is no research question. Of course, if there are serious flaws, the work will be rejected. Everyone attending the article meeting is asked to initially declare any relevant conflicting interests, and anyone with significant conflicting interests will either leave the room or speak last when the article is discussed (depending on the nature and scope of their interests).

• If your article is deemed suitable for Imgelem, the section editor will send your article to two external referees. Referees provide recommendations to the editors who will make the final decision. We ask referees to approve their reports and declare any conflicts of interest they may have regarding the article we send them. The final decision is made by the Chief Editor after the external referee evaluation process.

• In cases where serious research misconduct is suspected, some articles may also be reviewed by Imgelem's ethical editor and third parties deemed appropriate by the editor.

• We aim to reach a final decision on publication within 2 to 3 weeks after submission for all articles. If we offer a publication subject to revision, we usually ask authors to revise their articles and upload them to the system within the next month.

• Accepted articles are published at https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/imgelem as they become ready. Once published, articles are selected for the next issue.

• As part of our commitment to readers and authors, Imgelem provides open access to articles. All our articles are freely accessible online.

• If you notice any errors in your published article, please email the Chief Editor who will inform you whether a correction will be made.

Principles of the Peer Review Process for Editorial Staff's Work
Editorial articles and analysis papers written by Imgelem's own editors do not undergo external peer review. Original research papers, however, are sent to at least two external referees under blind peer review. During this period, the roles of those editors are suspended to prevent their involvement in the process and to ensure the complete implementation of double-blind peer review principles.

Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Check
The manuscript is first reviewed by the editor for compliance with journal publication guidelines, academic writing standards, and the APA Citation System, and then subjected to a plagiarism check using the iThenticate program. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The similarity index should be less than 20%. Even if the similarity index is below 1%, if citations and quotations are not properly used, plagiarism may still be an issue. Therefore, citation and quotation rules should be known and carefully applied by the author.

Citation/Indirect Quotation: If a reference is made to a thought, discussion, or observation from a source and the cited view is paraphrased in the researcher's own words, a footnote marker (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. If the citation refers to a specific page or range of pages in the work, page numbers should be provided. If there is a citation to the entire work, meaning that referencing the entirety of the work would require the reader's attention, the source should be indicated in the footnote after the expression "See", "Refer to", "Regarding this discussion", or simply "see".

Quotation/Excerpt: If the relevant portion is taken verbatim from the source without any alterations, it should be presented "within double quotation marks," followed by a footnote number1 to indicate the source. Quotations already present within the directly quoted text are indicated by 'single quotation marks'. If the directly quoted excerpt exceeds three lines (more than forty words), it should be presented as a separate paragraph. To distinguish long quotations from the main text, it is preferred to use a font size one point smaller than the normal text (11 points), with a line spacing of 1.15, and an indentation of 1.25 from both the right and left margins. In directly quoted text, some words, sentences, or paragraphs may be omitted as long as the meaning remains unchanged. Ellipses (...) are used to indicate omitted portions. Merely providing the source at the end without enclosing the verbatim excerpt within double quotation marks is not sufficient. Failure to adhere to these rules may subject the author to accusations of publication ethics violations (Plagiarism).

Field Editor Review
Following the Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Check stage, the manuscript undergoes examination by the relevant field editor for problematic issues and academic language-style. This review is completed within a maximum of 10 days.

Peer Review Process (Academic Evaluation)
The manuscript, following the review by the field editor, is submitted for evaluation by at least two external referees who have a doctoral thesis, book, or article related to the subject. The peer review process is conducted in confidentiality within the framework of double-blind peer review. The referee is requested to express their opinions and conclusions regarding the reviewed manuscript either directly on the text or through an online referee form with a rationale of at least 150 words. The author is given the right to defend their objections and views if they disagree with the referee opinions. The field editor facilitates mutual communication between the author and the referee while maintaining confidentiality. If both referee reports are positive, the manuscript is proposed for publication evaluation by the Editorial Board. If one referee expresses a negative opinion, the manuscript is sent to a third referee. Manuscripts can be published with the positive decision of at least two referees. The publication of book reviews, symposium evaluations, and doctoral thesis abstracts is decided based on the evaluations of at least two internal referees (relevant field editors and/or Editorial Board members).

Correction Stage
If the referees request corrections to be made in the reviewed manuscript, the respective reports are sent to the author, and they are asked to make the corrections. The author makes the corrections with the "Track Changes" feature enabled in Microsoft Word or indicates the changes in red within the text. The author then submits the corrected manuscript to the field editor.

Field Editor Check
The field editor verifies whether the author has made the requested corrections in the manuscript.

Referee Check
The referee requesting corrections verifies whether the author has made the requested corrections in the manuscript.

Expansion of Abstract and Extended Summary
Authors of manuscripts deemed "publishable" by two referees are requested to adjust the abstract of their articles to be between 100-250 words and to additionally provide an extended summary corresponding to ten percent of the article (approximately 1000 words)

Turkish Language Check
Manuscripts that have undergone the peer review process are reviewed by the Turkish Language Editor and the Chief Editor, and corrections are requested from the author if necessary. The review process is completed within a maximum of 10 days.

English Language Check
Manuscripts that have passed the Turkish language check are reviewed by the English Language Editor, and corrections are requested from the author if necessary. The English language editor's review process is completed within a maximum of 10 days.

Editorial Board Review
Manuscripts that have undergone technical, academic, and linguistic reviews are examined by the Editorial Board to determine whether they will be published and, if so, in which issue they will be included. The decision is made by a majority vote of the Board. In case of a tie, the final decision is made in favor of the editor's decision.

Typesetting and Layout Stage
The manuscripts approved for publication by the Editorial Board are typeset and formatted to prepare them for publication and are sent to the author for review. This stage takes a maximum of 15 days.

Submission of Data to National and International Indexes
The data for the published issue is submitted to the relevant indexes within 10 days.