Preliminary Review Stage
All submitted manuscripts are subject to a preliminary review by the editors, who may also seek the opinion of the editorial board when necessary. This process is conducted within the framework of the journal's Ethical Principles and Publication Policy. Submitted manuscripts are primarily checked for spelling and grammar, and examined for their adherence to scientific criteria. The similarity rate of the manuscripts must be less than 20%, excluding footnotes, direct quotations, and the bibliography. All formal formatting requirements and the submission process must be completed in accordance with the journal's guidelines. Manuscripts requiring modifications following the spelling and grammar check are returned to the author(s) for the necessary revisions. Manuscripts found to be non-compliant with scientific criteria are immediately rejected. Manuscripts deemed appropriate in accordance with the journal's scientific publishing standards are forwarded to the peer review process following this preliminary examination. The preliminary elimination and final decision regarding this matter fall under the discretion of the editors, who will also consult the editorial board.
Peer Review Process
Upon completion of the inspections specified in the Ethical Principles and Publication Policy by the journal editors, the Blind Peer Review and Evaluation Process policies are applied to manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary review stage. Accordingly, the manuscript is stripped of the author's name and submitted for review to two reviewers selected based on the manuscript's subject matter. All authority and decisions regarding the reviewer selection and the review process lie exclusively within the discretion of the editors.
The evaluation process is strictly conducted under the principle of double-blind peer review. Reviewers cannot contact the authors directly; evaluations and comments are transmitted via the journal management system. Throughout this process, evaluation forms and reviewer comments on the full texts are forwarded to the author(s) through the editor.
Following their evaluation, which must be completed within 15 days (with an allowable 15-day extension), the reviewers recommend whether the relevant manuscript should be published as is, revised, or rejected. The author is informed of the peer review outcome by the editors as promptly as possible. The publication of articles requiring revision is contingent upon the modifications being made exactly as stipulated by the reviewers; consequently, the author is granted 15 days to complete these revisions. If the revised manuscript is not submitted within the 15-day period, the article may be rejected by the editors.
Should both reviewer reports indicate that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication, the study is rejected. In such an event, the author cannot request a third reviewer evaluation. If one reviewer report is positive while the other is negative, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer, and subsequent actions are determined based on this final report. Revised or completed manuscripts may be sent back to the reviewers for an additional evaluation if the editors deem it necessary.
