Review Process Principles
Evaluation Principles
1) Articles that have not been published before or that are not yet under evaluation in another journal for publication and that are approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
2) Submitted and pre-checked articles are scanned for plagiarism using Ithenticate software.
3) Journal of Fungus carries out a double-blind refereeing process. All studies will first be evaluated by the editor in terms of suitability for the journal. The articles deemed appropriate are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers to evaluate the scientific quality of the article. A third arbitrator is appointed when necessary.
4) The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the articles independently of the authors' ethnic origin, gender, nationality, religious belief and political philosophy. It ensures that the articles submitted for publication undergo a fair double-blind peer-review.
5) Chief editor; does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and reviewers.
6) The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final.

Reviewers should ensure that all information regarding the submitted articles remain confidential until the article is published, and should report any copyright infringement and plagiarism on the part of the author to the editor.
If the reviewer does not feel qualified about the subject of the article or if it does not seem possible to provide a timely response, he should notify the editor of this situation and ask him not to involve himself in the review process.
During the evaluation process, the editor clearly states that the articles submitted for review to the reviewers are the exclusive property of the authors and this is a privileged communication. Reviewers and field editors cannot discuss articles with other people. Care should be taken to keep the identities of the reviewer confidential.

Evaluation Process
Reviewer Type: Double Blind
Double Blinding: After plagiarism check, eligible articles are evaluated by the editor-in-chief for originality, methodology, importance of the topic covered, and compatibility with the journal scope. The Editor-in-Chief ensures that the articles go through a fair double-blind reviewing and, if the article complies with the formal principles, it submits the incoming article to at least two (if necessary 3) review from the country and/or abroad, after the requested changes are made by the authors if the review deem necessary approves its publication.
Review Time: Pre-publish
Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editor-in-Chief/Field Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Time in Review: The period until the first decision for the research articles that are taken to the review process for review in the Journal of Fungus is approximately 30 days.
Acceptance Rate: We publish approximately 70-80% of the articles that reach our journal.
Plagiarism Check: Yes – Ithenticate and other programs scan articles for plagiarism prevention.
Number of Reviewers Reviewing Each Article: Two-three
Allowed Time: 20 days. This period can be extended by adding 10 days.
Decision: In order for the article to be accepted as a publication by the Editor-in-Chief, at least two reviewers must make an acceptance decision.
Suspected Ethical Violation: Reviewers should report the situation to the Editor-in-Chief when they suspect research or publication misconduct. The editor is responsible for carrying out the necessary actions by following the COPE recommendations.
The Editor-in-Chief reviews the research article on the day it is sent, and if the article is deemed to require further evaluation, each article is read from beginning to end with a more detailed review. We aim for an initial decision on all articles within four or five weeks, but usually the initial decision is made within a few days of submission. If we do not think that the Journal of Fungus is the right journal for the study, we will promptly notify the authors so that they can submit their work without delay. The usual reasons for rejection at this stage are insufficient originality and the subject being outside the scope of the journal.
Even if the subject of the article is relevant to the scope of the journal, current and important, we can reject the article if there is no research question. Of course, work will be rejected if it has serious defects.
If your article is eligible for the Journal of Fungus , the Editor-in-Chief or field editors will send your article to two external reviewers. Reviewers advise the editor-in-chief, who will make the final decision. We ask the reviewers to approve their reports and declare any conflicts of interest on the article we send them. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after the external review evaluation processes.
Some articles may also be viewed by Journal of Fungus central board of directors and third parties it deems appropriate in cases where serious research misconduct is suspected.
For all articles, we aim to make a final decision on publication within about six to eight weeks after submission. If we propose a publication subject to revision, we usually ask the authors to revise and upload their articles to the system within five days.
Accepted articles are published in October and April issues.
Journal of Fungus provides open access to articles as part of its commitment to readers and authors. All of our articles are freely available online.
If you notice any errors in the publication draft of your pre-publication article, email the editor-in-chief for correction.

Principles of the Review Process of the Editorial Staff Studies
Editorial articles and analysis articles written by the own editors of Journal of Fungus are not subject to external peer review. The original research articles of the editors are sent to at least two external reviewers within the scope of blind refereeing. During this time, the roles of those editors are suspended.

Authors Responsibilities
The author must comply with research and publication training.
The author should not attempt to publish the same work in more than one journal.
The author should fully indicate the works he has used in the writing of the article in the references.

Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board
Editor-in-Chief or Field editors evaluate manuscripts for scientific content, regardless of the authors' ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious belief, or political opinion. The editor-in-chief is responsible for all article evaluation processes.
The Editor-in-Chief or Field editors conduct a fair double-blind peer-review of the articles submitted for publication and ensure that all information regarding the submitted articles is kept confidential before publication.
The Editor-in-Chief and Field Editors inform the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential and this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the articles with other people. Anonymity of reviewers should be ensured. In certain circumstances, the Editor-in-Chief may share a reviewer's review with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. It is also his/her responsibility to issue a correction note or implement a withdrawal as necessary.
Chief Editor; does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, field editors and reviewers. Responsible for full authority to appoint reviewers and the final decision regarding the publication of manuscripts in the journal.
Except for the chief editor and the assigned field editor, if any, no member of the editorial board can access the processes in the article evaluation system for the articles.
The responsibility of the editorial board, which consists of field editors, is to assist the editor-in-chief in choosing a reviewer and to make recommendations for improvement in the publication policy of the journal.

Board of Directors (Editorial) Responsibilities
Board of Directors of the Journal of Fungus is Selçuk University Mushroom Application and Research Center board. The board of directors is authorized in the ethical problems of the published articles, in the regulation of the publication policies of the journal, and in the management of the journal. They cannot access the processes in the article evaluation system.

Responsibilities of the Reviewers
Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors and/or research funders.
The evaluations of the review should be objective.
The language and style used by the reviewers should not be offensive to the author.
Reviewers must ensure that all information regarding submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published.
Reviewers should notify the editor if they notice copyright infringement or plagiarism in the work they are reviewing.
A reviewer who feels inadequate to review an article or thinks that he/she will not be able to complete the review within the specified time should withdraw from the review process.
During the review process, the reviewers are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following: Does the article contain new and important information? / Does the abstract clearly and neatly describe the content of the article? / Is the method coherent and clearly defined? / Are the comments and conclusions made substantiated by the findings? / Are adequate references given to other studies in the field? / Is the language quality adequate?
The "Article Evaluation Form" used in the Journal of Fungus can be viewed on the journal website.

Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening
The study is reviewed by the editor for compliance with journal publication principles, academic writing rules, and APA Citation System, and it is submitted to iThenticate or Turnitin etc. It is screened for plagiarism using programs. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The plagiarism similarity rate must be less than 25%. Even though the similarity rate is 1%, if the citation and citation are not duly made, plagiarism may still be in question. In this respect, citation and citation rules should be known and carefully applied by the author:

Citation/Indirect Citation: If a reference is made to an opinion, discussion or determination in a source and the cited opinion is lined up with the citing researcher's own words, a footnote (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. If the reference is to a certain page or page range of the work, the page number should be given. If there is a reference to the whole work, that is, if it is cited in a way that requires the reader to examine the whole work, the footnotes include "See about this.", "See about this opinion.", "See about this discussion." or just “see.” The source should be indicated after the statement.

Quotation/Quote: If the relevant part is taken from the referenced source exactly as it is, without touching the dot and comma, the quoted part is "given in double quotes" and the source is indicated by giving the footnote number 1 at the end. Existing quotations in the directly quoted text are written using 'single quotes'. If the directly quoted part is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it is shown as a separate paragraph. In order to distinguish long quotations from the main text, it should be preferred to write in a font size one smaller than the normal text size and indent the entire paragraph from the left at the beginning of the carriage line. Some words, sentences and paragraphs can be omitted from the directly quoted text, provided that the meaning is not changed. Three dots (…) are put in place of the removed parts. It would not be correct to write the part that is quoted from a source without enclosing it in "double quotes" and to only write the source at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be accused of publication ethics (Plagiarism).

Review Process (Academic Evaluation)
The work, which is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or the Field Editor, is submitted to at least two external reviewers on the subject. The arbitration process is carried out in secrecy within the framework of the double-blind arbitration practice. The reviewer is requested to either state his opinion and opinion about the study he has examined on the text or justify it with a statement of at least 100 words on the online review form. If the author does not agree with the reviewers opinions, he is given the right to object and defend his opinions. The Editor-in-Chief or Field Editor ensures mutual communication between the author and the reviewer, while maintaining confidentiality. If both reviewers reports are positive, the study and its publication are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief. If one of the two reviewer has a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third reviewers. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two reviewers.

Correction Stage
If the reviewers want correction in the text they have examined, the relevant reports are sent to the author and he is asked to correct his work. The author makes the corrections with the "Track Changes" feature turned on in the Word program or indicates the changes in the text with red color. Submits the edited text to the Editor-in-Chief or the field editor.

Editor-in-Chief or Field Editor Control
The Editor-in-Chief or Field editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

Review Control
The review requesting correction checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

Turkish Language Control
Studies that pass the peer-review process are reviewed by the Turkish Language Editor and Editor-in-Chief, and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

English Language Control
The works that pass the Turkish language control are reviewed by the English Language Editor and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The English language editor's control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Typesetting and Layout Phase
The works that are decided to be published by the Editor-in-Chief are made ready for publication by typesetting and layout and sent to the author for review. This stage lasts for a maximum of 10 days.

Data Submission to National and International Indexes
The data of the published issue is transmitted to the relevant indexes within 30 days.