1. The articles sent to our journal are first reviewed by the secretary, at the same time the first version of the article is scanned from the iThenticate plagiarism program. After the secretary's review, it is sent to the spelling and language editors if deemed necessary. Editing may be requested from the author during this process.

2. After the author completes the edits, the article is sent to the editor by the secretary.

3. During this process, the editor sends the article to at least 2 reviewers who are experts in their fields and work in different universities for evaluation or appoints field editors to carry out this process when necessary.

4. Reviewers are given 15 days to evaluate the article. This period may be extended by the editor. In case the process is delayed, prolonged or if the referee's opinions are different, a third referee is assigned to the article by the editor.

5. As a result of the referee's evaluation of the article, the editor may request editing/correction from the author in line with the referee's opinions.

6. After making the necessary adjustments/corrections in line with the referee's opinions, the author should upload the final version of the article on the existing file in the "Article Files" section, as well as the annotated report file regarding the revision he has made in the "Article Files">"Review File" option. Author in the Revision Report; The referee should state which amendments/corrections he has made in line with the opinions of the reviewers, and which reviewers do not consider it necessary to implement their suggestions with a reasoned explanation. It is preferable to write them in articles.

7. The articles that are subject to minor revision are directly evaluated by the Journal Editorial Board without being sent to the reviewers again, unless there is a request for a referee after the revision and if the Editorial Board does not consider it necessary.

8. The articles that are subject to major revision are submitted to the same reviewers for evaluation after revision.

9. In the article evaluation process, depending on the nature of the referee reports, the Journal may refer to the opinions of other reviewers/reviewers with the decision of the Editorial Board.

10. At the end of all these processes, the final version of the article uploaded by the author to the system and the revision report are reviewed based on the referee's suggestions, and then the Editorial Board of the Journal decides to accept/reject the article for publication.

11. Articles accepted for the publication process may be subject to minor corrections (such as word-letter errors) before or after publication, within a 5-day period determined by Dergipark.

Time for evaluation of articles in the stage of admittance of our journal

1. Additional time for all overdue situations 5 Days

2. Maximum time for commence of process for a new article 10 Days

3. Time alloted for secretary in secretarial stage 10 Days

4. Maximum time for undertaking the article for the editor (Done Checking Stage) 10 Days

5. Maximum time for the editor continuing the process after undertaking an article (At the Editor Stage) 10 Days

6. Maximum time for an article to have a continuation on the process after being ready for decision (Ready for Decision Stage) 7 Days

7. Maximum time alloted for an editor to reach a decision (Waiting for Decision Stage) 7 Days

8. Maximum time for publishing process alloted to editor (Publishing Process Stage) 10 Days

9. Maximum processing time for editing-language, statistics, page layout editor and post editor 15 Days

10. The reply time for the invitation to the author done for operation 7 Days

11. Time alloted for the author to have an operation 15 Days

12. The reply time for the invitation to the peer-reviewer to have an evaluation 7 Days

13. Time alloted for the peer-reviewer for an evaluation 15 Days