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.
Submitted and pre-checked articles are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software.
After the plagiarism check, the appropriate articles are evaluated by the editor-in-chief in terms of originality, methodology, importance of the subject and compatibility with the scope of the journal.
Selected articles are sent to at least two national/international referees for evaluation by double-blind refereeing.
The publication decision is made by the Editorial Board after the arrangements made by the authors in line with the requests of the referees and the referee process.
Preliminary review and referee process takes an average of 15-16 weeks.

Review Time: Pre-release
Number of Reviewers: Three Internal Reviewers (Editorial Review) - Two External Reviewers (Peer Review)
Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Reviewer Interaction: Reviewers can only communicate with editors.
Time in Review: Average 110 day
Plagiarism Prevention Similarity Scan: In Progress – iThenticate

Manuscript Review Process: Double-Blind Refereeing
1. Editor-in-Chief Review: Immediately after submission, the Editor-in-Chief pre-checks the article for compliance with the journal's purpose and scope, and adherence to ethical standards in research and writing. Afterwards, the Editor directs the articles that comply with the journal's publication policy to the Assistant Editor for Editorial (Internal) Review.
2. Editorial (Internal) Review: Three internal referees are assigned at this stage.
Internal Referee 1 (Type of Referee: Open Referee)
The first internal referee is selected by the Editor-in-Chief from among the Associate Editors. Assistant Editor reviews the article for compliance with journal writing rules and subjects the article to iThenticate scanning for plagiarism. The identity of the internal referee is visible to the author, and the identity of the author is visible to the referee.
Inner Referee 2 and 3 (Type of Arbitration: Double-Blind Refereeing)
Two internal referees are selected by the Assistant Editor from among the members of the Editorial Board according to their fields of expertise. Internal referees evaluate the article in terms of its subject, method and results and decide whether the article should be included in the referee process for detailed evaluation. Throughout the process, the identity of the internal referees is kept confidential to the author, and the identity of the author to the referees.
3. Referee (External Review) Process: Two internal referees are assigned at this stage.
Outside Referee 1 and 2 (Type of Referee: Double-Blind Refereeing)
Two external referees are selected by the Field Editor among the researchers who have done research on the subject of the article. If the referee who has done research on the article cannot be found, the referees are determined from among the researchers who have a doctorate in that field. The referees evaluate the article in detail in terms of its subject, method and results and express their opinions on whether the article should be published or not. If both referee reports are positive, the work is accepted for publication with the decision of the Editor-in-Chief. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third referee. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two referees. During the process, external referees cannot learn the identity of the author and the author cannot learn the identity of the referees.

During the refereeing process, the referees are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following points:
1. Does the article contain new and important information?
2. Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article?
3. Is the method coherent and clearly defined?
4. Are the comments and conclusions made proven by the findings?
5. Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
6. Is the language quality sufficient?

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 bibliography.

Editor's Responsibilities
The editor evaluates the articles in terms of scientific content, regardless of the ethnic origin, gender, citizenship, religious belief or political opinion of the authors.
The editor makes a fair double-blind peer-review of the articles submitted for publication and ensures that all information about the submitted articles is kept confidential before publication.
The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential, and this is a privileged interaction. The referees and editorial board cannot discuss the articles with other people. Anonymity of referees should be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share one reviewer's review with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.
The editor 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.
Editor; does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees. Only the referee has full authority to appoint and the Editorial Board is responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of the articles in the journal.

Responsibilities of the Referees
Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors and/or research funders.
The evaluations of the referees should be objective.
The language and style used by the referees 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 refereeing process, the referees 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 "Preliminary Review Form", "Article Evaluation Form" and "Book Review Evaluation Form" used in Marifetname can be viewed on the journal website:  https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/marifetname 

Article Evaluation Process: Double-Sided Blind Refereeing
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. Submitted and pre-checked articles are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism control, 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 evaluates articles regardless of the authors' ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, and political philosophy. It ensures that the articles submitted for publication undergo a fair double-blind peer-review.
Selected articles are sent to at least two national/international referees for evaluation.
If the referees deem it necessary, changes are made by the author. The Editorial Board decides whether to publish the text corrected by the author.
chief editor; does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees. It has full authority to appoint an arbitrator.
If the referee 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 request that he be removed from the referee process.
Reviewers and editorial board members cannot discuss articles with other people. Care should be taken to keep the identities of the referees confidential.
If the author does not agree with the referee's opinions, he is given the right to object and defend his opinions. Provides mutual communication between the field editor, author and referee, while maintaining confidentiality. If both referee reports are positive, the study is submitted to the Editorial Board with a proposal to evaluate its publication. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third referee. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two referees.

Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening
Study; The journal is reviewed by the editor for compliance with publication principles, academic writing rules and ISNAD Citation System, and is screened for plagiarism using the iThenticate program. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The plagiarism similarity rate must be less than 15%. 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 a footnote number 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 that they be written in a font size one smaller than the normal text size and the entire paragraph should be indented from the left at the beginning of the carriageway. 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) (see www.isnadsistemi.org ).

Domain Editor Review
The study, which has passed the Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening phase, is examined by the relevant field editor in terms of problematic and academic language-style. This review will be completed in a maximum of 15 days.

Referee Process (Academic Evaluation)
The study, which passes the review of the field editor, is submitted to the evaluation of at least two external referees who have a doctoral thesis, book or article on the subject. The arbitration process is carried out in secrecy within the framework of the double-blind arbitration practice. The referee is requested to either state his opinion and opinion on the study he has examined on the text or justify it with a minimum 150-word explanation on the online referee form. If the author does not agree with the referee's opinions, he is given the right to object and defend his opinions. Provides mutual communication between the field editor, author and referee, while maintaining confidentiality. If both referee reports are positive, the study is submitted to the Editorial Board with a proposal to evaluate its publication. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third referee. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two referees. The publication of book and symposium evaluations and doctoral thesis abstracts is decided upon the evaluation of at least two internal referees (relevant field editors and/or editorial board members).

Correction Stage
If the referees 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 field editor.

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

Referee Control
The referee requesting correction checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.
Requesting the Abstract and Abstract
The authors of the studies, about which both referees have decided to be "publishable", are asked to expand the abstract/abstract part of the articles to 150-300 words.

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 Check
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.

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

Editorial Board Review
The articles that have passed technical, academic and linguistic examinations are examined by the Editorial Board, and whether they will be published or not, and if they will be published, in which issue they will be included is decided. The Board decides by majority vote. In the event of a tie, the final decision is made in the direction of the editor's decision.

Typesetting and Layout Phase
The typesetting and layout of the works decided to be published by the Editorial Board are made ready for publication and sent to the author for review. This stage lasts for a maximum of 15 days.

Data Submission to National and International Indexes
The data of the published issue is transmitted to the relevant indexes within 15 days.