1. MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION AND AUTHOR GUIDELINES
1.1. General Principles
1. Manuscripts submitted to TAKSAD must not have been previously published in any printed or electronic medium or be under consideration for publication in another journal.
2. Studies derived from postgraduate theses or papers presented at scientific conferences may be considered for publication. Such manuscripts must clearly indicate the thesis or conference paper from which they are derived in a footnote on the first page. Any information that may reveal the identity of the author(s) must be removed from the manuscript file submitted for double-blind peer review.
3. Manuscripts must be submitted exclusively through the DergiPark manuscript submission system. Submissions sent via email or other communication channels will not be considered for evaluation.
4. Manuscripts must be prepared in accordance with the journal's author guidelines and the Word manuscript template provided below. Manuscripts that do not comply with the prescribed template may be returned to the authors for the necessary revisions.
5. For manuscripts requiring transcription symbols or special typefaces, authors must provide the necessary information to ensure the correct display of the text. If the use of non-standard fonts is essential, the relevant font files must also be uploaded to the system along with the manuscript.
6. TAKSAD accepts scholarly manuscripts written in Turkish and English.
1.2. Citation and Reference Guidelines
7. All manuscripts submitted to the journal must comply with the 2nd Edition of the ISNAD Citation Style regarding citations, footnotes, and bibliographical references.
8. In-text citations, footnotes, and reference lists must be prepared consistently in accordance with the selected application of the ISNAD Citation Style.
9. Authors are encouraged to use reference management software such as Zotero or similar applications when preparing their reference lists. Regardless of the software used, authors are responsible for ensuring that all citations and references comply with the citation and formatting requirements adopted by the journal.
1.3. Double-Blind Peer Review and Author Information
10. TAKSAD adopts a double-blind peer review system in its scholarly evaluation process. Under this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from one another throughout the review process.
11. To maintain the integrity of the double-blind peer review process, the manuscript file submitted for evaluation must not contain the authors' names, surnames, academic titles, institutional affiliations, email addresses, or ORCID identifiers.
12. Any statements, acknowledgements, or other information that may directly or indirectly reveal the identity of the author(s) must also be removed from the manuscript file submitted for peer review.
13. Authors' personal details, institutional affiliations, and contact information must be provided separately through the Author Information Form and uploaded to the DergiPark system.
1.4. Similarity Report
14. Before submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors must obtain a similarity report through the intihal.net system.
15. The similarity report must be uploaded to the designated file upload section during manuscript submission. The DergiPark system provides guidance to authors on obtaining a similarity report as part of the submission process.
16. The submission of a similarity report does not, in itself, demonstrate that a manuscript complies with the principles of publication ethics. Similarity percentages and the matches identified in the report are evaluated by the editorial team in accordance with the principles of scholarly publication ethics.
2. PRELIMINARY SCREENING AND PEER REVIEW PROCESS
2.1. Editorial Preliminary Screening
1. Manuscripts submitted to TAKSAD undergo preliminary screening by the editorial team before being considered for peer review.
2. During the preliminary screening stage, manuscripts are first evaluated to determine whether their subject matter falls within the aims and scope of the journal.
3. Following the scope assessment, manuscripts are checked for compliance with the journal's author guidelines, manuscript template, citation style, footnote formatting, and reference list requirements. The editorial team also verifies whether all required documents have been uploaded.
4. If formatting or other formal deficiencies are identified during preliminary screening, the manuscript may be returned to the author(s) for the necessary corrections.
5. Manuscripts that fall outside the aims and scope of the journal or fail to meet the preliminary screening criteria may be rejected by the editorial team without being sent for peer review.
6. Manuscripts that successfully complete the preliminary screening process proceed to the scholarly peer review stage.
2.2. Principles of Peer Review
7. Manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening stage are submitted for evaluation to at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field, in accordance with the principles of double-blind peer review.
8. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly originality, methodology, contribution to the existing literature, academic coherence, and the scientific standards of the relevant discipline.
9. Authors may be requested to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers' reports. When revisions are required, authors are expected to address the reviewers' comments, make the necessary changes, and submit a response letter explaining the revisions made.
10. Reviewer recommendations are classified into four categories: acceptance, rejection, minor revision, and major revision.
2.3. Evaluation of Reviewer Recommendations
The procedures to be followed based on the reviewers' recommendations are outlined below.
a) Acceptance by Both Reviewers
If both reviewers provide positive recommendations, the manuscript proceeds to the publication stage following the completion of final checks by the editorial team.
b) Rejection by Both Reviewers
If both reviewers provide negative recommendations, the manuscript is rejected.
c) Rejection by One Reviewer and Major Revision by the Other
If one reviewer recommends rejection and the other recommends major revision, the manuscript is rejected.
d) Major Revision Recommended by Both Reviewers
If both reviewers recommend major revision, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for the necessary revisions.
Once the revisions have been completed, the revised manuscript may be resubmitted to the same reviewers for further evaluation.
However, the editorial team may also decide to terminate the review process and reject the manuscript after considering the reviewers' reports and the nature of the requested revisions.
e) Rejection by One Reviewer and Acceptance or Minor Revision by the Other
If one reviewer recommends rejection while the other recommends acceptance or minor revision, the manuscript is referred to a third reviewer to resolve the difference in recommendations.
The third reviewer's report is evaluated together with the previous reviewers' reports, and the final decision regarding publication is made by the editorial team.
f) Minor Revision by One Reviewer and Major Revision by the Other
If one reviewer recommends minor revision and the other recommends major revision, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for the necessary revisions.
The revised manuscript is subsequently resubmitted to the reviewer who recommended major revision.
If the reviewer considers the revisions satisfactory and provides a positive recommendation, the manuscript proceeds to the publication stage following final editorial checks.
If the reviewer provides a negative recommendation, the manuscript is referred to a third reviewer. The final decision is made by the editorial team after considering the third reviewer's evaluation alongside the previous reviewers' reports.
2.4. Final Publication Decision
11. Although reviewers' reports constitute the primary basis of the scholarly evaluation process, the final decision regarding the publication of manuscripts rests with the editorial team, in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and the reviewers' recommendations.
12. Positive recommendations from reviewers do not automatically guarantee publication. The editorial team may request additional formatting or editorial revisions from the author(s) when deemed necessary.
13. Manuscripts accepted for publication are published under the journal's continuous publication model following the completion of final checks and production procedures.
3. REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FOR MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION
To ensure that the manuscript evaluation process is conducted efficiently and that all submission requirements are fulfilled, authors must upload the following documents through the DergiPark system.
Makale şablonunu indirmek için tıklayınız.
Yazar bilgi formunu indirmek için tıklayınız.
Telif hakkı devir formunu indirmek için tıklayınız.
Çıkar çatışması ve yazar katkı beyan formu için tıklayınız. (Çok yazarlı makaleler için) 📝 Çıkar çatışması.docx