Article Evaluation Process
Research and review articles submitted to the Journal of Smart Systems (JOSS) are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review system in accordance with the principles of scientific quality, impartiality, confidentiality, and editorial independence. Each research and review article is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
1. Editorial Preliminary Review
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are first subjected to a preliminary review by the editorial team. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated in terms of:
compliance with the journal’s aims and scope,
compliance with the author guidelines and manuscript template,
scientific quality and originality,
appropriateness of ethical declarations,
citation and referencing style, and
similarity status.
Manuscripts that do not comply with the author guidelines may be returned to the authors for revision. Submitted manuscripts are screened using similarity detection software. Manuscripts that are found to be scientifically or ethically unsuitable may be rejected or returned to the authors without being sent for peer review.
2. Reviewer Selection and Independence
Each research and review article that successfully passes the preliminary review is sent to at least two independent reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field, taking into consideration the subject matter of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected by the editorial team based on their scientific expertise. To the extent possible, individuals affiliated with the same institution as the authors are not appointed as reviewers. The editorial team seeks to ensure that there are no institutional, academic, personal, or financial conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers.
A double-blind peer-review process is applied; the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
3. Management of Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must not have any conflict of interest concerning the manuscript they are invited to evaluate. If reviewers believe that a personal, academic, institutional, financial, or other conflict of interest exists, they should decline the review invitation or inform the editorial team and withdraw from the evaluation process.
Editors may likewise not participate in the evaluation or decision-making process for manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.
4. Peer Review and Revision
Reviewers conduct their evaluations according to scientific and objective criteria and submit their assessments to the editorial team through the DergiPark system.
If revisions are requested by the reviewers, the reviewer comments are communicated to the author, and the author is asked to revise the manuscript accordingly. Where necessary, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the reviewers for further evaluation.
A manuscript must receive two positive reviewer evaluations in order to be eligible for publication. If one reviewer provides a positive opinion and the other provides a negative opinion, the manuscript may be sent to a third independent reviewer, or an editorial evaluation may be conducted by taking into account the scientific reasoning presented in the reviewer reports.
5. Final Decision
Reviewer reports constitute a fundamental component of the editorial decision-making process. The editor completes the evaluation process by considering the reviewer reports, the scientific quality of the manuscript, its ethical compliance, and the journal’s publication policies.
The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board. Although reviewer opinions provide the basis for the scientific evaluation, the ultimate responsibility for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests with the editorial team.
6. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors and Individuals Affiliated with the Journal
Manuscripts authored or co-authored by an editor, field editor, Editorial Board member, reviewer, Guest Editor, or any other individual with an editorial relationship with the journal are subject to the same scientific and ethical evaluation criteria as all other manuscripts.
In such cases, the individual concerned is completely excluded from all stages of reviewer selection, evaluation, and the publication decision. The manuscript is handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest and is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Accordingly, the author’s role in or relationship with the journal does not provide any privilege during the evaluation process.
7. Confidentiality and Editorial Impartiality
Manuscripts under evaluation, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential. Editors and reviewers may not disclose information or documents obtained during the evaluation process to third parties or use them for personal or academic benefit.
All evaluation and publication decisions are made independently of the author’s institutional affiliation, academic title, or other personal characteristics and are based on the manuscript’s scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance, contribution to the journal’s aims and scope, and reviewer evaluations.