Lectio Socialis adheres to a continuous publication model, where accepted articles are immediately published and attributed to the annual issue, which is released at the end of the year (December).

The following rules delineate the parameters for manuscript submission, preparation, and citation:

1. Manuscript Length and Publishing Criteria

- Submissions must be relevant to the journal's aim and scope.

- The main text of the manuscripts should ideally be between 4000 and 10000 words. Submissions exceeding the upper word limit may be considered at the Editor-in-Chief's discretion.

- Manuscripts must be unique to Lectio Socialis and have not previously been published or are under review elsewhere.

2. Submission Process

- Manuscripts must be submitted via the Lectio Socialis webpage on DERGİPARK (www.dergipark.org.tr/lectio) after journal subscription.

- Submissions through email will not be accepted.

- The submission should include the author's name, contact information, and ORCID along with the paper title.

- The first page should include the paper's title and author names and affiliations. The second page should repeat the title, abstract (between 150 and 220 words), and 3 to 5 keywords. The subsequent pages should be numbered. 

- The contribution rate and specific type of each author must be disclosed at the end of articles with multiple authors. This promotes transparency and ensures that credit is given where it is due, while also establishing clear expectations and accountability for each author's contribution to the article's creation. A scholarly paper should only be authored by people who have made significant contributions to its intellectual content. Participation in acquiring funding or general supervision of the research group is insufficient for authorship. All authors should be responsible for fairly assessing their own and their co-authors' roles in the project. You are recommended to refer to the Definition of Authorship and Contributors carefully in ICMJE and Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). Individuals who do not meet the requirements but have made a significant contribution to the work may be acknowledged as appropriate in the publication. The editorial office considers the authorship list to be final by the time the original submission is received. Any changes to the authorship list, including additions, deletions, and rearrangements, should be done before the work is approved for publication. The corresponding author should give the editorial office the reasons for the change in the authorship list, as well as written confirmation from all authors (including existing authors and author(s) to be added and/or deleted) who agree with the change. The editorial office must authorize any requests for authorship changes before they can be implemented.

An example of an author contributions section:

Author contributions:

J. Erbas: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—Original Draft

A. Aslan: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing—Review & Editing

M. Lee: Investigation, Software, Visualization

All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

- If the research was funded by any agencies, institutions, or organizations, it should be declared in the Acknowledgements section. Also, if there is any Conflict of Interest, the authors should declare it. Conflicts of interest can arise when professional decisions about a main interest are influenced by a secondary interest (for example, financial gain). It should be highlighted that perceived conflicts of interest are just as important as actual conflicts of interest. Authors should avoid any agreements with study sponsors (for-profit or non-profit) that interfere with their access to the study data or their ability to analyze or interpret the data and publish the manuscript independently according to their own decision. When submitting an article, authors are required to disclose all competing interests related to their work, which includes, but is not limited to, funding sources, the roles of sponsors in project design, data collection, and analysis findings, as well as whether any authors are members of the Editorial Board of the publication to which they are submitting their article. Additionally, editors and reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest associated with the paper and are obligated to withdraw from the peer review process if necessary. In cases where authors submit an article to a journal for which they are Editorial Board members, the editorial office mandates their recusal from the peer review process. Editors and reviewers may be replaced for various reasons, such as if they work for the same company as one of the authors, if they are one of the authors of the work, if they appear on the author's avoidance list, or if they have a financial or personal connection with the author.

- An ethics committee approval must be obtained for research conducted in all disciplines, requiring ethical committee decision, and this approval should be stated and documented in the article. In studies requiring ethical committee permission, information about the permission (board name, date, and issue number) should be included in the method section and on the last page of the article. Research that requires permission from an Ethics Committee includes the following:

    - Any research that involves collecting data from human participants through methods such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, observations, and experiments using qualitative or quantitative methods.

    - Any research that involves the use of humans or animals (including materials/data) for experimental or other scientific purposes.

    - Clinical studies conducted on human subjects.

    - Research conducted on animals.

    - Retrospective studies that comply with personal data protection laws.

    - Furthermore, when submitting case reports that mention obtaining an "Informed Consent Form," it is crucial to obtain permission from the owners before using any scales, surveys, or photographs that belong to others. It is also important to ensure that all ideas and works of art used are in compliance with copyright regulations and to state this explicitly.

Ethics Approval Statement
This study was granted ethical approval by the Human Subjects Ethics Committee of Istanbul Yeni Yuzyil University, with decision no. 2019/1 during their meeting held on January 7th, 2019, in Istanbul, Turkey. All procedures that involved human participants were carried out in compliance with ethical standards, and informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

3. Peer Review Process

The meticulous review process at Lectio Socialis ensures the integrity and quality of published works while upholding the highest standards of academic rigor. Reviewers invited to evaluate submitted manuscripts must be independent of the editorial board and the authors' affiliations. The following stages delineate the journey from manuscript submission to potential publication:

Initial Evaluation: When submitting a manuscript to Lectio Socialis, the editorial team will evaluate it to ensure that it aligns with the journal's scope and adheres to formatting guidelines. Please note that manuscripts authored by journal editors and editorial board members will not be considered for publication. If such a manuscript is submitted, it will be immediately returned without undergoing the review process.

Scope and Format Review: Submissions within the journal's scope undergo a comprehensive evaluation to verify their alignment with the journal's thematic focus. This preliminary assessment typically concludes within a maximum of two weeks.

Double-Blind Review Preparation: For an impartial review, personal identifiers of authors are removed from the manuscript before the double-blind peer review process.

Plagiarism Examination: Prior to the review, submitted manuscripts undergo a plagiarism assessment. During the submission phase, a similarity report is automatically generated from intihal.net. Those with a similarity rate exceeding 30% are excluded from further review.

Language Proficiency: At the editor's discretion, manuscripts may be assessed for language proficiency. Submissions deemed inadequate in language quality may face rejection at this stage.

Peer Review: Submissions that successfully navigate the preparatory stages are dispatched to at least two independent reviewers. Each reviewer holds the prerogative to accept, reject, or recommend revisions—both major and minor—based on the scholarly merits of the manuscript. The initial review cycle typically spans approximately six weeks.

Reviewer Consensus: Should two reviewers reject a manuscript, the review process terminates, and the submission is declined. Should the majority of reviewers deem a manuscript suitable for publication, it advances in the review process.

Third Reviewer: In instances where one reviewer rejects the manuscript and another either accepts it or recommends minor revisions, a third reviewer may be engaged to ensure a balanced evaluation. If a second reviewer requests significant revisions, the decision to involve a third reviewer rests with the editor.

Author Revisions: Authors must respond to reviewers' comments and make any necessary revisions within a set timeframe—typically two weeks for minor revisions and up to four weeks for major revisions. Requests for extensions may be accommodated through communication with the editor. If the manuscript undergoes major revisions, it is sent back to the reviewers who recommended major revisions for a second evaluation. When submitting the revised version of a manuscript, it is important for the corresponding author to provide a separate file titled "Respond to Reviewers." This file should include a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments and suggestions, explaining how each comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript. This will help ensure that the revised manuscript meets the requirements and expectations of the reviewers and increases the likelihood of its acceptance for publication.

Final Decision: Based on the reviewer recommendations, the editor assigned to the submitted manuscript makes the final decision. Upon completion of the review process, manuscripts that have garnered favorable assessments proceed to the production phase, marking a significant stride toward potential publication.

Publication: An accepted manuscript will be sent for copy editing, layout editing, and proofreading before publication. Correspondence between the authors and editors will be required at this stage in order to improve the language and/or look of the article. After the production stage is completed, authors are required to check the PDF file of the final version before the article is published. The publisher will register a DOI for the article after publication, and the article is immediately accessible to the public.

4. Manuscript Editing and Formatting

- All manuscripts must be paginated.

- Utilize the provided template for manuscript formatting, accessible through the provided link (please click on the link).

- Sentence Case for Titles, Headings, and Captions: In keeping with the stylistic standards of "Lectio Socialis," all article titles, headings, subheadings, and table and figure captions should be formatted in sentence case. This means that the first letter of the title, as well as the first letter of any proper nouns, should be capitalized. All other letters should be in lowercase unless grammar dictates otherwise.

1. Correct: "Reexamining the role of identity in contemporary politics"
- Explanation: Only the first letter of the sentence and the proper noun 'Reexamining' is capitalized.
2. Incorrect: "Reexamining The Role Of Identity In Contemporary Politics"
- Explanation: This example incorrectly capitalizes the first letter of each word.
3. Correct: "Secularization trends in Turkey: A comparative analysis"
- Explanation: The first letter of the sentence and the proper noun 'Turkey' are capitalized.
4. Incorrect: "Secularization Trends In Turkey: A Comparative Analysis"
- Explanation: This title incorrectly capitalizes the first letter of each word.

- Adhere to APA 7th Edition for citations and references. See below for in-text citation examples:

- According to Johnson (2019, p. 42), "climate change impacts are evident globally."
- "Climate change impacts are evident globally" (Johnson, 2019, p. 42).

- Johnson (2019) discussed the global evidence of the impacts of climate change.
- Climate change impacts are discussed as evident globally (Johnson, 2019).

- Smith and Brown (2020) suggested a comprehensive approach.
- A comprehensive approach is suggested (Kurt et al., 2023).

- Smith (2018a) emphasized the ecological impact.
- Smith (2018b) focused on social implications.

Examples for the "Bibliography" section prepared according to APA 7 rules:

Journal Articles:
Johnson, A., Smith, B., Lee, C., Jones, D., & Brown, E. (2021). The effects of exercise on mental health in college students. Journal of Health Psychology, 26(3), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320987654
Miller, K. L., Davis, R. A., & Jones, S. M. (2020). Exploring the impact of social media use on body image in adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(6), 783-789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.012
Smith, C. D., Johnson, B. A., & Brown, M. E. (2019). An examination of the relationship between sleep and academic performance in college students. Journal of Sleep Research, 28(2), e12871. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12871
Tucker, R. W., Davis, J. L., & Lee, S. M. (2018). The impact of mindfulness practice on stress reduction in healthcare professionals. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000074
Note: In this example, the references are listed in alphabetical order by the last name of the first author. The titles of journals are in sentence case and italicized. The page range comes after the issue number in parentheses and the italicized volume number. A DOI (digital object identifier) is included for each reference, when available.
Books:
Smith, J. (2019). The power of habit: Why we do what we do in life and business. Random House.
Jones, R. H. (2018). The psychology of persuasion. Oxford University Press.
Book Sections/Chapters:
Johnson, M. (2020). The role of motivation in learning. In R. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 121-137). Routledge.
Brown, N. (2019). Understanding group dynamics. In J. Lee (Ed.), The psychology of teamwork (pp. 55-73). Springer.
Websites:
American Psychological Association. (2021). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association. https://apastyle.apa.org/
Jerkins, S. (2020). COVID-19: How to protect yourself and others. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html

Note: For book references, the author's name, publication year, book title, and publisher are included. For website references, the organization or author, publication year (if available), webpage title, and URL are included. When citing webpages, it is important to include the date accessed if the content is likely to change over time.

By adhering to these formatting guidelines, authors ensure consistency and readability across the journal's publications. If you have any questions or require clarification regarding formatting, please contact the editorial team.

5. Plagiarism Prevention and Language Editing

- Authors are encouraged to consider language editing, particularly if English is not their first language.

- When submitting a manuscript, the use of AI is typically restricted to language editing tasks, such as grammar and spelling checks, and should not be used for more substantive editing or decision-making tasks. While AI technology can be helpful in identifying errors or inconsistencies in text, it is important to note that it is not a substitute for human expertise and judgment. Authors should carefully review and revise their own work, before submitting their manuscript. Additionally, it is important to disclose any use of AI tools or technology in the manuscript submission process to ensure transparency and ethical practices.

6. COPE Compliance

Lectio Socialis adheres to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Codes of Conduct.

7. Open Access Policy

8. Dataverse

We expect authors who make quantitative inferences in their manuscripts to submit data and log files to our Dataverse archive prior to publication. We encourage authors using qualitative data to submit data to Dataverse if this would facilitate greater research transparency and accessibility.

9. Review Timeframe

The peer-review process typically spans three months on average.

10. Withdrawal and Retraction

If authors decide to withdraw their submission from the journal, they must provide a formal letter to the journal editors outlining the reasons for their decision. Consent from all co-authors is required for the removal of a submission initiated by one author. The final determination regarding the withdrawal rests with the journal editors, including the Editor-in-Chief. Withdrawing a paper currently in the peer review process is significantly more complex than retracting a new submission, as editors and reviewers have invested considerable time and effort in evaluating the manuscript. Authors must present a compelling scientific rationale for withdrawing an article that has undergone peer review; only legitimate and cogent reasons will be taken into account. It is important to note that an article should only be retracted if serious issues or weaknesses are identified, as withdrawing a manuscript post-submission for peer review is generally deemed unacceptable. Upon approval of the withdrawal request, the submission will be removed from the journal's online submission system, and authors will receive a confirmation email regarding the withdrawal. The withdrawal process is considered complete once authors have received this confirmation from the journal's editorial office. Authors may withdraw submissions for accepted papers that have not yet been formally published, which includes newly accepted papers and those in press.

The retraction of an accepted article in publication is typically initiated by the editor. The rationale for retracting an accepted article in press is similar to that for a published article. At this stage, the article will not proceed to production or finalization. A panel will be convened to investigate allegations of misconduct. If the claims are substantiated by credible evidence, the accepted paper or article in press will be marked for retraction. Any appeals against the panel's decision must be submitted to the publisher within two weeks of the decision date. If no appeal is submitted within this timeframe, the submission will be deleted from the journal's online submission system, and a confirmation email regarding the retraction will be sent to the authors.

Readers may contact the editorial office to report allegations of potential academic misconduct, including ethical violations in research and publication, regardless of the severity of the issues. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism, research falsification, data fabrication, presenting others' work as one’s own, simultaneous submissions to multiple publications, and infringement of intellectual property rights. Upon receiving reports of alleged misconduct, the publisher will initiate an investigation, and authors are required to cooperate with the inquiry. A panel will be established to review the claims. If the allegations are confirmed with adequate evidence, the published work will be marked for retraction in both HTML and PDF formats. A notification email regarding the panel's decision will be sent to all authors. Any appeals concerning the panel's decision must be submitted to the publisher within two weeks of the decision date. If authors do not submit an appeal within this period, a confirmation email regarding the article's retraction will be sent to them.