Law Faculty Journal of Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University

Continuous Publication Model

The Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University Faculty of Law Journal (TNKÜHFD) has adopted the "Continuous Publication" model in line with the speed and accessibility requirements of the digital age. In this model, the waiting periods for "issue completion" in the traditional understanding of journal publishing are completely eliminated. Every article that successfully completes the peer review and layout processes is published directly in the journal's active issue for that year without being held in a pool. Thanks to this dynamic structure, the DOI numbers of the studies are activated immediately, and the works begin to be indexed in global databases, providing their authors with early citation potential and immediate academic visibility.

Double Peer Review

The strongest guarantee of our publication quality and scientific impartiality is our "Double-Blind Peer Review" system, which we apply without compromise. Every work submitted to our journal is first subjected to a rigorous preliminary evaluation by the editorial board in terms of scope, ethical principles, and academic quality. Works that pass this stage are sent to at least two independent external reviewers who are experts in their field and whose academic competence is certified. Throughout the process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept completely confidential, ensuring that the evaluation is based solely on scientific merit. Especially in specialized fields such as bio-law, the constructive feedback provided by our reviewers contributes to transforming articles into internationally recognized reference texts.

The Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University Faculty of Law Journal (TNKÜHFD), operating on the principle that providing scientific research freely to the public will increase the global sharing of knowledge, adopts the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) standards and provides immediate open access to all its content. All works published in the journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). Within this scope, readers and users may read, download, copy, distribute, or create derivative works from the full texts of the works without prior permission from the publisher or author, provided that they do not pursue a commercial purpose and properly cite the original work/author.

No Copyright Transfer: Authors retain the copyright and all property rights to their works without restriction. There is no transfer of rights to the journal. Authors grant TNKÜHFD the first publication rights of the work and permission for digital reproduction necessary for the journal's inclusion in relevant indexes. Authors may submit and freely share the published version of their work to institutional archives, libraries, or personal websites without any embargo period, provided they cite the journal in which the article was published.

1. Introduction and General Principles
Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University Faculty of Law Journal (TNKÜHFD) is a peer-reviewed publication committed to publishing high-quality academic works that contribute to legal science. The scientific quality, impartiality, and compliance with ethical standards of the works submitted to our journal are ensured by the meticulous evaluations of our reviewers.
TNKÜHFD applies the "Double-Blind Peer Review" system in the evaluation process. According to this system, the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the process. The basic approach expected from our reviewers is to develop a culture of criticism that is constructive, instructive, and within the framework of academic courtesy.
2. Ethical Responsibilities and Confidentiality of Reviewers
Reviewers are obliged to comply with the standards determined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in the evaluation process:
• Confidentiality: All texts submitted for evaluation are in "confidential document" status. Reviewers cannot share information about the works they review with third parties other than the editor, and cannot use the content of the work for their own academic interests. • Impartiality: Reviewers must base their evaluations entirely on scientific criteria, free from any religious, political, or commercial bias. Personal criticism should be avoided, and criticisms should be based on concrete evidence and literature. • Conflict of Interest: If there is any conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author (family relationship, working in the same institution, participating in a joint project, etc.), the reviewer must immediately inform the editor and return the review assignment. • Time Management: If reviewers cannot complete the evaluation within the allotted time (usually 15-30 days), they must inform the editor as soon as possible and request an extension or return the assignment.
3. Evaluation Criteria
For an article to be published in TNKÜHFD, it is expected to meet the following basic legal and scientific criteria. Reviewers should focus on the following points when preparing their reports:
• Originality and Contribution: Does the work bring a new perspective to the existing legal literature? Is the subject matter current? • Does the study fill a gap in legislation, court decisions, or doctrine? • Methodology: Is the method of the study clearly stated? Are the legal analyses presented in a consistent logical sequence? Is there a balance between the scope of the subject and the depth of the article? • Legal Analysis and Terminology: Does the author use legal concepts appropriately and correctly? Are the analyses limited to definitions, or do they include an in-depth discussion? • Use of Sources: Is the bibliography up-to-date and sufficient? Are important works and current high court decisions cited? Do the citations comply with the writing rules adopted by the journal (e.g., OSCOLA or TDK rules)? • Language and Style: Is the text written in academic legal language? Is the narrative fluent and understandable? Do spelling errors disrupt the integrity of the text?
4. Preparation of the Peer Review Report and the DergiPark System
TNKÜHFD conducts all its processes through the DergiPark infrastructure. Our reviewers can access the evaluation form by logging into the system via the invitation link provided to them. The following points should be considered when preparing the report:
• Evaluation Form: The questions in the standard evaluation form in the system (Originality, Methodology, Bibliography, etc.) should be answered meticulously. Answers given only as "Yes/No" may not be sufficient for the editor to make the final decision; therefore, it is recommended to add short explanations for each item. • Notes to the Author: Reviewers should state their concrete suggestions for improving the article in this section. Criticisms should be written in a constructive language that supports the author's academic development. Specific correction suggestions made by giving page and paragraph numbers will speed up the process. • Notes to the Editor: Confidential opinions about the suitability of the article for publication can be shared in this section. The reviewer has the right to share their private concerns, which they do not want the author to see, only with the editor. • File Upload: Reviewers can also submit the corrections they have made to the article text as a file to be uploaded to the system using the "Track Changes" feature. However, it must be ensured that this file does not contain any "Personal Information" (File properties -> Author section) that would reveal the referee's identity.
5. Final Decision Options
The reviewer must choose one of the following four options as a result of their evaluation:
1. Publishable (Accepted): The article is scientifically and technically flawless in its current form and requires no changes.
2. Publishable After Corrections (Minor Correction): Only secondary corrections such as spelling errors, minor missing citations, or grammatical errors are sufficient. In this case, the article is sent to the author, and the corrections are checked by the editor; there is no need to send it back to the reviewer.
3. I Want to See It Again After Corrections (Major Correction): There are substantial deficiencies in the content, methodology, or legal analysis of the article. After the author completes these deficiencies, the article will be re-evaluated by the same reviewer.
4. Not Publishable (Rejected): The article is scientifically inadequate, its methodology is flawed, it violates ethical rules, or it is outside the scope of the journal's publication. When making a rejection decision, it is essential that the reasons are clear and academically satisfactory. 

6. Correction Process and Second Evaluation
When authors receive the referee reports, the relevant referee checks whether the corrections they have made meet the referee's requests. Referees who select the "I want to see it again" option are notified again via the system to review the corrections made by the author and the "Explanatory Note" prepared regarding these corrections.
7. Acknowledgments and Academic Contribution
TNKÜHFD is aware that the refereeing role, which holds an important place in academic advancement and incentive criteria, is a selfless service offered to the scientific community. A "Referee Certificate" is automatically generated via DergiPark for referees who have completed the evaluation process, in recognition of their contributions. This certificate can be used as official evidence in academic incentive and associate professorship applications. We thank you in advance for your valuable contributions and academic work to our journal.