A- EVALUATION PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES
GENERAL PRINCIPLES

(1) The Review Editor reviews the manuscript submitted to Ordu University Journal of Faculty of Theology, and if the journal is not considered to be the right journal for the study, this is indicated in the Review Form, and the authors are immediately notified so that they can send their work elsewhere without delay. The usual reasons for rejection at this stage are insufficient originality and the topic being outside the scope of the journal.

(2) Accepted articles are published on https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/oduifd as they are prepared. After publication, the articles are selected for the next issue.

(3) Ordu University Journal of Faculty of Theology provides Open Access to articles as part of its commitment to readers and authors. All our articles are freely accessible online.

(4) If you notice any errors in your published article, please email the Editor-in-Chief, who will let you know if the correction will be made.

(5) Ordu University Journal of Faculty of Theology conducts a double blind review process. All manuscripts are first examined according to the criteria of the "Review Process" (respectively: Preliminary Review, Spelling Check, Language Check). The manuscripts deemed appropriate are reviewed according to the "Evaluation Process" (respectively: Subject Editor Evaluation, Publishing Board Evaluation, External Reviewer Evaluation) is initiated.

(6) The Editor-in-Chief ensures and supervises the review and evaluation processes of the articles regardless of the ethnic origin, gender, nationality, religious belief and political philosophy of the authors. The Editor-in-Chief ensures that the articles submitted to the journal undergo transparent, systematic and fair processes in accordance with scientific peer-reviewed journal publishing criteria in both the review and evaluation processes.

(7) The Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees.

(8) The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.

(9) All editors of the journal are not involved in decisions about manuscripts written by themselves or by family members or colleagues (working in the same organisation), or about products or services of interest to the editor. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures.

(10) Reviewers must ensure that all information about submitted manuscripts remains confidential until the manuscript is published, and must report to the Editor-in-Chief if they discover any copyright infringement or plagiarism on the part of the author.

(11) If the referee does not feel qualified in the subject matter of the manuscript or is unlikely to be able to provide timely feedback, he/she should inform the editor of this situation and ask him/her not to involve himself/herself in the review process.

(12) During the review process, the Editor-in-Chief or the designated Field Editor (with at least a PhD degree in the field) should make it clear to the reviewers that the manuscripts sent for review are the private property of the authors and that this is a privileged communication. Reviewers and editorial board members may not discuss manuscripts with other persons. Care should be taken to keep the identity of the reviewers confidential.

(13) Review Process: refers to editorial processes in the technical sense; Evaluation Process: refers to editorial processes in the scientific sense.

A.1. REVIEW PROCESS

(*) Manuscripts that have not been published before or that are not currently under evaluation in another journal for publication and that are sent by the Corresponding Author by approving the Copyright Agreement and Author-Article Information Form (additional files, if any) by each author are accepted for evaluation.

(*) While submitting the manuscripts, they are scanned by Intihal.net, which is integrated into the journal's system, and sent to the journal. If a second similarity report is deemed necessary in the preliminary review, the article is scanned with Turnitin and/or iThenticate.

The articles received by the journal are first subjected to the following processes respectively;

REVIEW PROCESS:
(1) PRELIMINARY REVIEW (5 DAYS)
(2) SPELL CHECK (7 DAYS)
(3) LANGUAGE CHECK (5 DAYS)
(1) Preliminary Review: The Preliminary Review Editor carries out the preliminary review process. Accordingly, the article is examined according to the items in the Preliminary Review Form. As a result of the review, it determines whether the article will be forwarded to Spelling Control with more or less edits or returned to the author. The review form is attached to the process files.

(2) Spell Check: Articles that pass the Preliminary Review process are subjected to spell check. Spell Check is carried out by the Manuscript Editor. Accordingly, the article is examined according to the items in the Spelling Editor Review Form and stored in the system. The file reviewed by the Spelling Editor is added to the process files of the article.

(3) Language Control: Articles that pass the Spell Check process are subjected to Language Control. Language Control is carried out by Language Editors. Accordingly, the article is examined according to the items in the Language Editor Review Form and stored in the system. The file reviewed by the Language Editor is added to the process files of the article.

The Evaluation Process of the articles that pass the Preliminary Review, Spelling Control, Language Control processes in the Review Process is initiated.

A.2. EVALUATION PROCESS

EVALUATION PROCESS:
(1) FIELD EDITOR EVALUATION (7 DAYS)
(2) EDITORIAL BOARD EVALUATION (7 DAYS)
(3) EXTERNAL REFEREE EVALUATION (MIN. 7 DAYS | MAX. 14 DAYS)
(1) Subject Editor Evaluation: The article that has passed the Review Processes is forwarded to the Field Editor to carry out the Evaluation Processes. The Field Editor evaluates the article in terms of its field. Accordingly, the article is evaluated according to the items in the Field Editor Evaluation Form and uploaded to the process files. In addition, the article file containing the suggestions of the Field Editor is also uploaded to the process files.

(2) Publishing Board Evaluation: A member of the Editorial Board related to the subject of the article evaluates the article's compliance with the referee process. Accordingly, the article is evaluated according to the items in the Internal Reviewer (Editorial Board) Evaluation Form. As a result of the evaluation, the board member contributes to the healthy progress of the referee process with minor and major options in addition to the acceptance option, and contributes to the editorial process with the rejection option. Acceptance, minor or major decisions of the Editorial Board member other than rejection are not included in the decision regarding the publication process of the article.

(3) Referee Evaluation: The article that passes the Editorial Board Evaluation is sent to at least two external referees in the field and/or article subject by the Field Editor (with at least a PhD degree). The article, which is determined by the Field Editor to have an interdisciplinary nature, may be forwarded to 3 or 4 more external referees if deemed necessary. This situation is justified in the Field Editor Evaluation Form.

(3a) Selection of External Reviewers: Referees are selected among experts who have at least a PhD degree in the field of science to which the article is related and who have publications on the article. It is also ensured that the referees are not from the same city and institution. The information of the experts from Turkish universities can be accessed via YÖK Academic website and the information of the experts from abroad can be accessed via Publons.

(3b) Double-Blinding: The Editor-in-Chief or the Field Editor assigned by the Editor-in-Chief ensures that the manuscripts go through double-blind refereeing in a fair manner, and if the manuscript complies with the formal principles, it is submitted to the evaluation of at least two referees from Turkey and/or abroad, and if the referees deem it necessary, they approve the publication of the manuscript after the requested changes are made by the authors.

(3c) Evaluation Time: Author-Reviewer Interaction before the Publication Process in Ordu University Journal of Theology Faculty: The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief and Area Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors. Time in the Review & Evaluation Process: Approximately 8 Weeks (60 Days).

(3d) Acceptance Rate: The articles that successfully pass the review and evaluation processes of the articles received by our journal are published in the issue period in which they are submitted. For this reason, there is no acceptance rate in our journal's policy. All submissions are given one correction for each review from the Preliminary Review, Spell Check, Language Check processes. If this is not complied with, the articles are not included in the evaluation process and are rejected.

(3e) Similarity and Plagiarism Check: Yes -Intihal.net. Ordu University Journal of Theology Faculty scans the articles through intihal.net, which is integrated into the journalipark system, to prevent plagiarism.

Number of External Referees Reviewing Each Article: Two
Permitted Duration: Min. 7 days | Max. 14 days.
This period can be extended by adding 5 days if a serious justification is presented.

(3f) Decision: In order for the article to be accepted for publication by the Editor-in-Chief, at least two referees must make an acceptance decision.

(3g) Suspicion of Ethical Violation: Referees should inform the Editor-in-Chief or the Field Editor if they suspect misconduct in the research or publication. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for taking the necessary actions in accordance with COPE recommendations.