Publication Review Process and Principles

Manuscript Submission and Preliminary Evaluation

Manuscripts submitted to Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University International Journal of Art and Design must be prepared in accordance with the journal's aims and scope, principles of publication ethics, and author guidelines. Manuscripts must follow the referencing guidelines of the American Psychological Association (APA 7th edition).

Submissions are accepted exclusively through the DergiPark system. Authors are responsible for uploading their manuscripts in the file formats specified by the journal and in compliance with its author guidelines.

Submitted manuscripts are initially examined by the editorial team in terms of their relevance to the journal's aims and scope, scientific originality, ethical compliance, academic quality, and formatting requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements of the preliminary evaluation may be rejected without undergoing peer review, or authors may be requested to make the necessary revisions.

Peer Review Process

The journal employs a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from one another.

Manuscripts that successfully complete the preliminary evaluation are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on criteria such as scientific originality, theoretical and methodological adequacy, coherence of the subject matter, contribution to the field, consistency of findings, appropriate use of academic terminology, clarity of presentation, and language proficiency.

The review period is 15 days. If a reviewer fails to complete the evaluation within this period, a new reviewer may be appointed to prevent delays in the publication process.

Reviewer Reports and Editorial Decisions

The following principles apply to decisions made following peer review:

• Two positive reviewer reports: If both reviewers consider the manuscript suitable for publication, it may be accepted following the necessary editorial checks.
• One positive and one negative reviewer report: If the reviewers' recommendations conflict, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. The final editorial decision is made by taking the reviewers' reports into consideration.
• Revision requests: If one or both reviewers request revisions, their comments and recommendations are communicated to the authors. The revised manuscript may be returned to the same reviewers for further evaluation, if deemed necessary.
• Two negative reviewer reports: If both reviewers consider the manuscript unsuitable for publication, it is rejected, and the decision is communicated to the corresponding author.

Although reviewer reports form the basis of the scientific evaluation process, the final decision regarding the publication of a manuscript rests with the editorial team.

Manuscripts receiving an unfavorable outcome from the peer-review process will not be published. Manuscripts rejected by the journal will not be reconsidered if resubmitted without substantive changes to their content.

Revision and Re-evaluation Process

Authors whose manuscripts require revisions based on reviewer reports must make the necessary changes and resubmit their revised manuscripts.

Authors are expected to carefully consider the reviewers' comments and recommendations and clearly indicate the revisions made. If authors disagree with any reviewer recommendations, they must provide scholarly justifications for their decisions.

During the revision process, corrections made to the manuscript must be indicated in red font, while other changes must be highlighted in yellow.

The revised manuscript must be uploaded to the DergiPark system under the existing submission record, using the file name “revizyon_tammetin”.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation if deemed necessary. The final publication decision is made following the reviewers' subsequent assessments and editorial examination.

 Confidentiality and Ethical Principles in the Review Process

The journal adheres to the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, academic integrity, and research ethics throughout the manuscript evaluation process.

The identities of authors and reviewers, review reports, and related documents are protected in accordance with confidentiality principles and retained under the journal's archiving policy.

Reviewers and editors must not disclose information obtained during the evaluation process to third parties or use such information for their own research or personal benefit.

Where conflicts of interest arise among authors, reviewers, or editors that may compromise the impartiality of the evaluation process, appropriate editorial measures are taken.

Authors bear responsibility for the scientific content, research data, language, and relevant legal obligations associated with their published works.

Acceptance for Publication and Continuous Publication Process

Manuscripts that successfully complete the peer-review process and are accepted for publication by the editorial team proceed to the publication stage following the completion of all necessary final checks.

Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University International Journal of Art and Design has adopted a continuous publication model. Under this model, manuscripts that have successfully completed peer review and editorial procedures and have been accepted for publication are published electronically without waiting for a predetermined issue or publication period.

The continuous publication model does not alter the journal's scientific evaluation criteria or peer-review procedures.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions and Complaints

Authors may submit reasoned appeals against editorial decisions made during the evaluation process to the journal's editorial office.

Appeals are examined in accordance with the relevant reviewer reports, scientific evaluation criteria, and principles of publication ethics.

Reports of ethical violations or procedural irregularities during the evaluation process are assessed in accordance with the journal's Ethical Principles and Publication Policy and the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).