All articles sent to Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Arts and Science Journal of Science (SDUFASJS) are firstly taken to the two-step preliminary evaluation process mentioned below. All studies are evaluated in terms of "Plagiarism Prevention" and "Writing Rules Review" at this stage before the referee examination.
1. Plagiarism Prevention: All articles submitted to the SDUFASJS from January 1st, 2017 are scanned with the software called "iThenticate: Plagiarism Detection Software" for the plagiarism prevention. Studies with similarities exceeding 20 %, excluding references and single word matches, are rejected. Studies with a similarity rate of 20 % or less are passed to the next step.
A study is included in the plagiarism prevention process at most 3 (three) times, and if the similarity rate does not fall below the journal criteria as a result of these processes, it is rejected and not included in the re-evaluation process.
2. Layout Review: Articles with a similarity score of 20 % or less are examined in terms of conformity with the sample article format presented to the authors. MS Office Word format is provided by our journal. Sample file is available on the "Author Guidelines" page. The "Author Guide" page can be accessed by clicking here.
The articles that pass the preliminary evaluation process are forwarded to the editor of the relevant subject. Failed articles in the preliminary evaluation process can be rejected according to the similarity rate within the knowledge of the Editor-in-chief, or sent back to the author for editing.
The subject editor shall designate at least three (3) national and/or international referees in his/her field to assess each of the articles that complete the preliminary evaluation process. Referees invited for evaluation are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the evaluation within 5 (five) calendar days. At the end of this period, the referee who has not issued any decision shall be deemed to have rejected the evaluation and the subject editor shall appoint a new referee. Referees accepting the evaluation are expected to deliver their views within 30 (thirty) calendar days from the date of acceptance. No additional time is allowed to complete the evaluation process to the referee for completing the evaluation process and a new referee appointment is made by the subject editor.
The names of the referees invited for evaluation are not notified to authors (Single-Blind Peer Review).
All the authors' information must be entered into the system during the article submission. Journal management is not responsible for missing information.
In line with the recommendation of the judges evaluating the article, the subject editors transmit their final decisions regarding the study as "Accept", "Minor Correction", "Major Correction" or "Reject".
The time allowed for the author to make the requested changes taking into account the referee and editors decisions is 30 (thirty) calendar days. If no reply is received from the authors at the end of this period, the article is automatically rejected.
Referees seeking to see the revised article at the end of the proposals are expected to respond to the authors' replies within 15 (fifteen) calendar days. It is assumed that referees who do not comment during this period have declared a positive opinion.