Article Evaluation Process

• The referee processes of the articles submitted to our journal are carried out within the scope of double blind refereeing.
• Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by the editor for compliance with the journal's editorial principles, academic writing rules, and the Vancouver Citation System, and are scanned for plagiarism using Intihal.net (https://intihal.net/en/). The similarity rate is expected to be less than 20%. Manuscripts exceeding this rate are rejected without being included in the referee process.
• After the Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Scanning, the eligible manuscripts are reviewed by the field editor and then forwarded to at least two expert referees within the scope of double blind refereeing. If one of the two referees responds negatively, the manuscript is sent to a third referee. In order for the manuscripts submitted to our journal to be published, at least two referees must make a publishable decision.
• In articles evaluated within the scope of double blind review, the process is carried out in confidentiality. The information of the referees and authors is kept confidential.
• In cases where the referees request corrections, the relevant referee evaluations are sent to the author and the correction is requested. The corrected text is first checked by the field editor and then by the referee(s).
• The manuscripts that have passed the referee process are examined by the Language Editors and, if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The corrected text is checked by the language editors.
• The manuscripts that are decided to be published are prepared for publication by typesetting and layout.
• After the typesetting and layout processes are completed, the article is published in the journal.

NOTE: In our journal, referees are given 20 days to evaluate the articles, but this period can be extended by adding 10 days.

NOTE: Click here for detailed information about the article process statistics of our journal.

Referee Process Principles for the Work of the Editorial Staff

Manuscripts written by our own editors are sent to at least two external referees as part of double-blind refereeing. During this period, the roles of those editors are suspended, thus preserving the double blind review process.

Selection of Reviewers

• Our journal pays attention to the fact that referees and authors do not work in the same institution during the article evaluation process.
• In the article evaluation process, our journal pays attention to the fact that the referees are experts in their field and have completed their doctorate.

Responsibilities of Stakeholders

1-Responsibilities of Authors

Hiding Credentials

• Not to include any information that may reveal the identity of the authors in the submitted article file.
• Not sharing author names, institutional information or other personal information directly in the article content.
• Referring to one's own work in the third person when referring to other works.
File Preparation and Control

• To prepare anonymised manuscripts and supplementary files.
• Avoiding information identifying the identity of the authors in the submitted supplementary documents.
Compliance with Ethical Principles

• Not to make any communication or indirect attempts that may adversely affect the peer review process.
• Avoiding statements or information that may have an impact on the referee or journal editors.
Presenting an Objective and Scientific Study

• Present the work in the clearest, most detailed and scientific way possible so that the referees can make an independent assessment.
• Describe the methods and findings of the study in a reproducible and transparent manner.
Maintaining Confidentiality in Revisions

• Maintain anonymity when making corrections requested by reviewers.
• Using language that does not reveal the identity of the author when explaining the reasons for changes made in the revision file.
Respect and Honesty in the Process

• To respect the principle of confidentiality by respecting the double blind peer review process.
• Not to attempt to manipulate the peer review process in any way.
Declaring Conflicts of Interest

• To declare any possible conflicts of interest related to the subject of the study, the referees or the journal at the time of application.
• In the event of such a conflict, inform the journal management and find appropriate solutions.
Respect for Referee Feedback

• Carefully consider comments from reviewers and apply corrections in an unbiased manner.
• Use a professional and respectful tone when responding to feedback.

2-Peer Review Policy 

Selcuk Dental Journal operates a rigorous double-blind peer review system. All submitted manuscripts are first screened for relevance to the journal’s scope and compliance with ethical and editorial standards.

Review Process:
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the field.
Reviewers provide detailed and constructive feedback on the scientific quality, originality, and clarity of the manuscript.
Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer comments.

Editorial Oversight:
The handling editor assesses the reviewers’ reports together with the authors’ revisions and responses. Based on this assessment, the handling editor submits a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) to the Editor-in-Chief.

Final Decision:
The Editor-in-Chief is the final decision-maker on all manuscripts. This decision is reached after careful consideration of the handling editor’s recommendation, the peer reviewers’ reports, and the authors’ revisions and responses. In case of a conflict of interest, the editor involved withdraws from the process, and another qualified editor is assigned.

This process ensures impartiality, transparency, and consistency in editorial decision-making.

Editorial Decision Flow

1) Initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor (scope, ethics, quality).

2) Double-blind peer review by at least two reviewers.

3) Handling editor recommendation based on reports and author responses.

4) Final decision by the Editor-in-Chief.

5) Appeals may be submitted with detailed justification and will be reviewed by the editorial board..

3- Responsibilities of the Referees

Objective and Impartial Evaluation

• To evaluate the submitted article impartially in terms of its scientific contribution, methodology and accuracy of its findings.
Scientific Competence and Originality Control

• To evaluate the scientific value of the study and its contribution to the field.
• To examine the accuracy, validity and reliability of the hypotheses, methods and findings in the article.
• To determine whether the study is original or not and to notify the editor if signs of plagiarism are found.
Ethical Control

• To check that the research is conducted in accordance with ethical rules and that the relevant ethical approvals have been obtained.
• To verify the existence of ethics committee approval or authorisation documents in studies involving human or animal subjects.
Constructive and Detailed Feedback

• Provide constructive and detailed feedback so that authors can improve the manuscript.
• Emphasise the strengths of the paper and clearly articulate areas for improvement.
• To offer solutions to missing or faulty sections.
Protecting Confidentiality

• Not to share the content of the article with third parties by adhering to the principle of confidentiality during the evaluation process.
• Not to use the information obtained during the evaluation for their own work or the work of others.
Conflict of Interest Declaration

• To notify the editor if there is a conflict of interest related to the manuscript.
Compliance with Evaluation Criteria

• To review in accordance with the evaluation criteria determined by the journal.
• To complete the evaluation within the specified time frame by adhering to the journal policy during the refereeing process.
Language and Format Evaluation

• To evaluate whether the work is written in an academic language and clear expression.
• If there are serious errors in terms of language and grammar, to inform the editors about this issue and to suggest the necessary arrangements.
Evaluating Revisions

• To re-examine the changes made by the author according to the reviewer feedback and make a new evaluation.
• Checking whether the revisions are sufficient and submitting information to the editor for final decision.
Time Management

• To complete the evaluation process within the period specified by the journal.
• To inform the editor if there will be delays and to endeavour to complete the process without disruption.
Scientific and Academic Contribution

• To take into account that the refereeing process is an opportunity to improve scientific quality and increase the quality of publications.
• To offer suggestions that will improve the article, not just criticise it.