Submission and Technical Pre-Check

Manuscript submissions to SDÜ İFADE are made through the DergiPark system. Following submission, manuscript files are checked during the editorial pre-check stage for required submission documents, metadata information, anonymization requirements, and basic formatting conditions.

Manuscripts containing missing documents, author-identifying information, or failing to meet basic submission requirements may be returned to authors for necessary corrections before entering the scientific evaluation process.

Authors should consult the Author Manuscript Submission Guide for submission procedures and the Writing Rules and Manuscript Template for formatting requirements.

Similarity Screening

The anonymized full text uploaded during submission is automatically sent for similarity screening. For details of the process and threshold values, see the Ethical Principles and Publication Policy page.

Editorial Screening

Manuscripts that pass the technical pre-check are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor.

During editorial screening, the manuscript is assessed in terms of:

• its alignment with the journal's Aim and Scope,
• suitability for the submitted article type,
• compliance with ethical principles,
• theoretical and methodological adequacy,
• contribution to the field of communication studies.

Manuscripts that fall outside the scope of the journal, do not meet basic scientific requirements, or fail to comply with ethical or formal requirements may be concluded with a justified editorial decision without being sent for peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

SDÜ İFADE applies a double-blind peer review system. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed.

Manuscripts passing editorial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewer selection considers the subject, theoretical approach, methodology, and area of expertise of the manuscript. Individuals with conflicts of interest are not assigned as reviewers.

Reviewer evaluations are prepared considering the scientific quality, originality, methodological adequacy, and contribution of the manuscript. Reviewer comments constitute a fundamental component of the editorial decision process; however, acceptance or rejection decisions are not made through a mechanical application of reviewer recommendations.

When substantial disagreement exists between reviewer reports, the editor evaluates the existing reports and may seek an additional reviewer opinion when deemed necessary.

Peer Review Process

Reviewers conduct their evaluations through the DergiPark system. Reviews are prepared by considering the originality of the study, theoretical framework, methodological appropriateness, presentation of findings, and scientific contribution.

When necessary, reviewers may provide detailed evaluation reports or additional comments. The double-blind review principle is maintained when reviewer comments are communicated to authors.

Reviewer reports are an important component of the editorial decision process; however, the final publication decision is not an automatic outcome based solely on reviewer recommendations.

Divergent Reviews and Additional Evaluation

When significant differences exist between reviewer reports, the editor evaluates the reviews collectively.

If deemed necessary, a third reviewer opinion or additional scientific evaluation may be requested.

Revision Process

For manuscripts requiring revision, authors are expected to upload:

• the revised anonymized full manuscript,
• responses to reviewer and editor comments,
• other required documents

through the DergiPark system.

Authors should clearly and systematically indicate the changes made in the response document. After revision, manuscripts may be resubmitted to the same reviewers or, when necessary, to new reviewers.

The document to be used for revision responses: Response to Reviewer Comments Form

Editorial Decision

Following completion of the peer review process, manuscripts enter the editorial decision process based on the evaluation of the relevant section editor and reviewer reports.

The section editor may evaluate reviewer comments, the scientific quality of the manuscript, and required revisions, and submit a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

The final decision regarding acceptance, rejection, or further evaluation is made by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief may delegate this authority to authorized editors when necessary; however, academic integrity and editorial responsibility remain with the Editor-in-Chief's office.

If the Editor-in-Chief, section editor, or any editor involved in the decision process has a conflict of interest, the manuscript is assigned to an independent editor.

Post-Acceptance Publication Process

Accepted manuscripts undergo language editing, editorial editing, typesetting, metadata preparation, and final checks before publication.

During language editing, necessary revisions may be made regarding spelling, expression, academic language use, and formal consistency. This process does not constitute a new evaluation of the scientific content of the manuscript.

At this stage, DOI, volume/issue or article information, and author declarations are verified.

When author proofing is requested, corrections are made to eliminate technical and editorial production errors, not to introduce changes to the scientific content.

Transitional Provisions

Updated forms, templates, and writing rules of the journal apply to new submissions made after their effective date.

New regulations are not applied retroactively to manuscripts already under evaluation.