Articles submitted to the KHM go through the following stages.

First Evaluation Phase

A manuscript submitted to the KHM is primarily evaluated by the journal editor(s). The editor(s) of the journal rejects manuscripts that do not comply with the purpose and scope of the journal, that are weak in terms of academic publication language and Turkish (English/German) grammar and expression rules, that contain scientifically unacceptable errors, that do not have original value and that do not comply with the publication principles. The author(s) of the rejected manuscript will be sent an information text explaining the reason for rejection within one month at the latest from the date of submission of the manuscript.

The manuscripts that are deemed appropriate by the KHM editor(s) at the first evaluation stage are directed to the field editor to carry out a detailed review of the content area of the article.

Evaluation by the Field Editor

Manuscripts that successfully complete the Initial Review Stage are reviewed by the Field Editor. At this stage, the Field Editor examines the literature, method, findings and conclusion sections of the manuscript in detail in terms of content and especially originality. At this stage, the field editor checks whether the article overlaps with the academic field of the relevant field, whether the academic terminology of the relevant field is used correctly, and whether the sections of the study are organised in accordance with an academic study. It checks for the last time whether the study complies with the purpose and scope of the journal and whether it complies with the publication principles.

The author/authors of the manuscript rejected by the Field Editor after the Evaluation Stage are informed with a report explaining the reason for rejection within one month at the latest from the date of submission of the manuscript.

The referee evaluation process is initiated for the manuscripts that are deemed appropriate to be sent to the referees after the Evaluation Stage by the Field Editor. At this stage, the Field Editor directs the relevant study to 2 referees for evaluation, taking into account the content of the study.

Referee Evaluation Phase

The manuscripts that have completed the Initial Evaluation Stage and the Evaluation Stage by the Section Editor are directed to 2 referees to be evaluated by the Field Editor, taking into account their areas of expertise. At this stage, the Section Editor can select referees from the KHM referee pool or suggest new referees suitable for the field of the study.

When the referees accept that they will evaluate the articles sent to them for evaluation; they undertake to evaluate the study within the defined time frame and to submit the evaluation reports of the study. In addition, the referee who accepts to evaluate a study undertakes that they will evaluate the content of the study, the information and documents related to the study within the confidentiality rules and that they guarantee that they will not share any process documents related to the study.

Referee Reports

The Referee Evaluation Phase is completed with the referee's evaluation report. The referee completes his/her evaluation of the article by filling out the KHM Referee Evaluation Form.

The KHM Referee Evaluation Form asks the referee to evaluate the originality of the study, the appropriateness of the abstract, the relevance and adequacy of the literature review, the appropriateness of the selected method, the correct presentation of the findings, the adequacy of the results and discussion, the figures, charts and tables used in the study are prepared in accordance with scientific rules, and the references are relevant and sufficient. The referee also evaluates that the study is carried out in accordance with the rules of scientific work in general, that the terminology in the article is written in a way that dominates the terminology, that the writing of the article is scientific and that it is in accordance with the rules of language spelling.

At the Reviewer's Conclusion and Decision stage, the referee states the Reviewer's Conclusion and Decision to publish the manuscript. The decision options for the referee are as follows:

ACCEPT: It can be published as is.
CORRECTION: It can be published with correction (it is sufficient to be checked by the Editorial Board).
CORRECTION: I would like to see it again.
REJECT: It is not suitable for publication.
In addition, the referees are obliged to write their opinions about the study in the "Note to the Author" section to be forwarded to the authors.

The Field Editor may ask the author/authors to make corrections in their publications in line with the opinions of the referees who evaluate the publication. Authors are expected to reorganise their publications in line with these corrections from the referees. The final decision regarding the study to be published is made by the Editorial Board.

The author/authors may object to the referees' evaluation opinions provided that they provide explanatory evidence. The objections are evaluated by the Editorial Board and if deemed necessary, a different referee opinion may be applied for the submitted publication.

Referee Evaluation Process

Referee assignments for the article are made by the Field Editor. The referee is required to respond within 7 days whether or not to referee the relevant study. The referee invitation can be extended for a maximum of 3 days. After the referee accepts the invitation, the referee is given 30 days to evaluate the manuscript based on the date of acceptance. The Section Editor may grant the referee a maximum of 7 extra days to complete the evaluation.

If the referees do not evaluate the manuscript within a reasonable time, the Section Editor may send the manuscript to different referees for evaluation.

Completion of the Evaluation of the Study

The Section Editor completes the evaluation of the manuscript within 2 weeks by taking into consideration the KHM Referee Evaluation Form filled out by the referees, the referees' General Evaluation Result of the Manuscript and the decision to publish the Manuscript.

If the referee reports are 1 in favour of acceptance and 1 in favour of rejection, the Section Editor sends the study to a third referee. The Section Editor sends the final decision about the study to the Editor(s).

Editorial Board Decision

Editor(s) form the editorial board opinion on the study by taking into account the opinions of the Section Editor and referees. The opinion of the Section Editor and referee opinions are sent to the author(s) within 1 week at the latest.

Plagiarism Checker Software Report

For work accepted for publication, KHM requests authors to submit a plagiarism report using a widely recognised plagiarism software (iTehticate or Turnitin) to prevent plagiarism. Authors should strictly avoid plagiarism. Plagiarism, which is one of the most important problems of scientific ethics, is the republication of all or part of a previously published publication (this may be the author's own previously published publication) as a new publication without citing the source.

Total Duration of the Evaluation Process

The evaluation process of a manuscript by the KHM takes approximately 1-1.5 months. However, work steps that take place outside of this period, such as sending the manuscript to the third referee and requesting corrections from the author(s), are not included in this 1.5-month period.