MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION PROCESS GUIDE

This guide summarizes the principles and steps to be followed by the secretariat, editors, and section editors throughout the process from initial manuscript submission to publication. The objective is to ensure that all operations are carried out in line with academic ethics, impartiality, and transparency.

1. INITIAL CONTROL PROCESS

During this process, the Secretariat Control Form is followed, and the date of manuscript submission is taken into account to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

-Compliance with ethical committee approval and ethical principles is checked.

-The appropriateness of the Copyright Transfer Form is reviewed.

-The presence of the Ethical Committee Approval Certificate or the Declaration Form for Studies Not Requiring Ethical Approval is verified.

-In-text citations and references are reviewed for APA 7 compliance.

-Similarity ratio and adherence to author guidelines are reviewed.

-Articles with deficiencies detected during the preliminary control process are sent back to the correspondence author, and the deficiencies are requested to be corrected.

-Manuscripts not revised within the system-defined timeframe are rejected or returned.

-Manuscripts that pass this stage are submitted to the Editor.

-The Editor assigns an Associate Editor.

Based on the criteria such as contribution to literature, scope relevance, and methodological adequacy, the Editor or Associate Editor may decide to return, reject, or initiate the peer review process.

2. PEER REVIEW PROCESS 

The manuscript is evaluated under a double-blind peer review system, where the authors and reviewers are not aware of each other's identities.

Following the initial control and editor screening, a Section Editor is assigned. The Section Editor Guide and Checklist is followed in this stage. The Section Editor reviews the manuscript and assigns referees. Prior to referee assignment, the manuscript is reviewed according to the following principles:

A. Section Editor Preliminary Review

-The compatibility of the manuscript type with its structure (e.g., problem, aim, method, findings) is verified. (See Manuscript Template)

-Language, academic tone, and APA 7 compliance are assessed.

-Institutional information in the ethics approval statement is removed.

B. Reviewer Assignment

-At least two experts from different institutions should be assigned.

-Reviewers from the same institution as the author(s) must not be selected.

-Institutional and geographical diversity is taken into account.

-Reviewers should not be among those involved in the submission process (e.g., Secretariat, Editorial Board).

-The author information and institution name should be deleted from the file, and this file should be uploaded to the system and author visibility should be enabled.

-Conflict of interest possibilities must be evaluated prior to assignment.

C. Conflict of Interest Principles

-Reviewers and authors should not be from the same institution.

-Co-authorship, funding connections, or academic conflicts should be considered.

-If a reviewer suspects a conflict of interest, they must inform the editor.

D. Time Management Principles

-Reviewer invitations should be sent promptly.

-Referees who do not accept the invitation within three days must be re-invited. If the invitation is not accepted within three days of the re-invitation, replacement referees must be appointed.

-Reviewers are given 15 days to complete their evaluations.

-If there is no response, a new reviewer is assigned.

-Authors are given 7–21 days for revisions, and follow-up is conducted.

-The revised text should be checked within 3–5 days at the latest and a decision should be -made as to whether it will be sent to the referee again.

-All steps should be regularly monitored through the journal system and communication should be carried out through the system.

E. Evaluation of Reviewer Reports

-Reports must be based on scientific grounds and provide constructive and explanatory feedback.

-Reports containing only yes/no responses are not considered.

-Referees should be asked to upload the "correction sheet file" to the system and it should be followed.

-If there is a contradiction between the reports, a third referee should be appointed.

-Reviewer names in comment fields must be removed.

-Candidate articles requiring revision are sent to the authors through the system, along with referee reports (without revealing the identities of the referees) and editorial notes.

F. Author Revision (If Applicable)

-Authors must respond clearly to reviewer suggestions.

-Revisions should be highlighted in a different color in the revised document.

-A detailed revision/response checklist should be uploaded.

-The revised file should be sent to the same referee(s).

 3. PEER REVIEW EVALUATIONS AND FINAL DECISION PROCESS

Below are the editorial procedures to be followed based on various peer reviewer evaluations. It should be noted that the editor reserves the right to exercise discretion in all evaluation processes. Final decisions are not solely based on numerical majority but also take into account the quality of the reports, the author’s revision performance, and the overall scientific integrity of the manuscript.

-If one reviewer recommends "Accept" or "Minor Revision" and the other recommends "Major Revision," the manuscript is sent back to both reviewers after the author submits the revisions. If the “Major Revision” reviewer then recommends “Reject,” the editor may assign a third reviewer or issue a rejection decision.

-If both reviewers recommend “Major Revision,” the manuscript is sent back to the same reviewers after the author completes the revisions. If one reviewer subsequently recommends “Accept” and the other “Reject” or continues with “Major Revision,” a third reviewer may be assigned or the editor may decide to reject the manuscript.

-If one reviewer recommends “Reject” and the other “Major Revision,” the editor may assign a third reviewer or reject the manuscript, based on the nature of the evaluations.

-If one reviewer recommends “Accept” or “Minor Revision” and the other “Reject,” the editor may, if deemed necessary, assign a third reviewer or issue a rejection decision.

-If both reviewers recommend “Reject,” the editor generally issues a direct rejection. However, if the peer review reports are deemed insufficient or superficial, the editor may assign additional reviewers.

-If one reviewer’s report is insufficient or superficial (e.g., merely states “appropriate”), the report is considered invalid. The editor will assign a new reviewer and resume the evaluation process.

-If the author raises a scientifically grounded objection to the reviewer comments, the editor will carefully assess the objection. If the scientific justification is deemed adequate, the decision may be revised, or a new reviewer may be assigned.

-If a reviewer identifies an ethical concern (e.g., plagiarism, fabricated data), the editor will evaluate the issue with the Editorial Board and, if necessary, initiate a rejection, warning, or ethical reporting process.

-If reviewer reports are technically favorable but indicate methodological concerns, the editor may seek input from a third expert reviewer. If needed, a scientific advisor or methodological expert may be consulted.

-If all evaluations are positive but the manuscript is technically weak (e.g., language, format, clarity), the editor may request revisions. A final decision will be made following language editing and typesetting.

Note: The editor makes the final decision by holistically evaluating all reviewer reports, the quality of revisions, and the scientific content. In line with publishing policies and publication ethics, the editor reserves the right to assign a third reviewer or issue a rejection decision when necessary.

4. LANGUAGE EDITING PROCESS

-Accepted manuscripts are sent to the Language Editor for academic language review.

-The Language Editor evaluates grammar, spelling, and clarity in Turkish/English.

-Required corrections are either reported to the author or directly revised in the manuscript.

-No manuscript can proceed to layout without Language Editor approval.

5. LAYOUT PROCESS

-Language-checked manuscripts are sent to the Layout Editor for formatting.

-The Layout Editor finalizes page formatting according to the journal's template.

-Author/institutional information, ethical declarations, and final files are completed in this stage.

6. FINAL PROOFREADING PROCESS

Before publication, manuscripts undergo final proofreading, which involves visual and content review:

-Formatting and layout checks

-Language and expression review

-Author and ethical information verification

-Author final approval

IMPORTANT REMINDER

The Editor or Associate Editor has the authority to stop the process, request additional reviews, or change their decision at any stage. This authority is used to preserve editorial independence, publication ethics, and academic quality.

7. REVISIONS AND PUBLICATION

-Authors are responsible for completing revisions based on reviewer feedback within the specified timeframe before publication.

-After final approval, authors may not make any further changes (except during Layout and Final Proofreading stages).

-Finalized manuscripts are scheduled for publication in the earliest upcoming issue, not based on submission date.

-In case of editorial errors, authors may request corrections within 5 days after publication.

-The journal publishes issues in June and December, by the last working day of the respective month at the latest.