1. Preliminary Evaluation: In this process, the documents uploaded by the author(s) are formally evaluated by the journal secretariat. Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics and International Relations returns the manuscripts to the authors if the documents deemed necessary to initiate the publication process are missing (see Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics and International Relations Writing Rules, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/novusorbis/writing-rules). The article is forwarded to the relevant field editor if there is no document deficiencies.

2. Editorial Evaluation: The field editors who evaluate the submitted articles follow the following steps:

The field editor decides on the status of articles outside the journal's scope or not uploaded to the system correctly and completely, as well as articles that do not comply with the journal article writing rules. This decision may be in the form of sending the manuscript back to the authors for corrections or rejection, if necessary. If the manuscript contains plagiarism, there is a possibility of plagiarism, or if the similarity rate exceeds the rules of Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics and International Relations, the manuscript will be rejected directly by the editor. More detailed information about this issue is on the Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics and International Relations Journal Writing Rules page (https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/novusorbis/writing-rules). The decision of the editor is notified to the author(s).

3. Double Blind Peer Review: The articles are included in the peer review process after successfully completing the pre-evaluation and editorial processes. Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics and International Relations uses a double-blind peer review system to evaluate articles. This system has a vital role in improving the quality of academic publications. In this process, the identities of the author and the referee are kept mutually confidential, and there is no communication. Any text or symbol that can reveal the author's identity cannot be included in the article. Referees send their evaluation reports directly to the journal editor, and the editor is responsible for forwarding the reports to the authors. It is checked that the reports are created in a way that does not reveal the reviewers' identities. The editor also provides feedback to the authors. If it is decided that the article will be evaluated by referees, at least two expert scientists suitable for the article's subject are determined as referees, and the article is sent to the referees via the system. The referees submit the results of the scientific review to the editor via the system together with the "Referee Evaluation Report" and, if necessary, the relevant files.

The referee indicates one of the following decisions in his/her report:

For articles to be published, at least two referees must give a "positive" opinion. If one of the referees gives a "positive" opinion and the other gives a "negative" opinion, the article is sent to a third referee. Suppose there are requests for corrections and/or suggestions in the referee reports. In that case, the editor will forward the referee reports to the article's author and request the corrections to be made within two months at the latest. Failure to make the specified corrections within this period may result in the rejection of the article. When deemed necessary, the editor sends the article to the "language editor" to correct errors and obtain the author's approval.

4. Final Evaluation: After the referees report at least two positive opinions and the article passes through the language editor when deemed necessary, it passes to the final evaluation stage. At this stage, the manuscripts are once again reviewed by the editorial board, and, if necessary, corrections may be requested. If all edits are approved by the Editorial Board, the article is considered "publishable." The Editorial Board also decides in which issue the article will be published.