The process of article submission, evaluation and communication to the tarihyazımı journal is carried out exclusively through the DergiPark Akademik system.
Articles submitted to our journal are subjected to a four-stage evaluation process.
1. Preliminary Evaluation
Within the scope of this evaluation;
1. Manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an evaluation conducted by the Journal Secretary utilizing the "Preliminary Evaluation Form" outlined below.
- During the preliminary assessment stage, the documents that must first be uploaded (for all articles, the ‘Copyright Form’; for translated articles, additionally the ‘republication permission’ and ‘original version of the article’) are checked.
- In the second stage, applications are checked for compliance with the journal template and writing rules.
- The third step entails verifying the similarity report of the manuscripts (through tools such as Ithenticate, Turnitin, and/or intihal.net). The journal's publication policy stipulates that manuscripts submitted for publication must not exceed a similarity rate of 20%.
2. Manuscripts failing to satisfy the aforementioned criteria are rejected during the preliminary review phase.
3. Articles that successfully navigate these stages are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for further editorial assessment.
4. The preliminary evaluation process is completed within a timeframe of 10 days.
2. Editorial Review
• Articles that complete the Pre-Evaluation phase are directed to the relevant Field Editor. At this stage, the Field Editor examines the study in terms of content and originality and evaluates whether the study overlaps with the purpose, scope, and publication principles of the journal. At this stage, the field editor checks whether the article overlaps with the academic field of the relevant field, whether the academic terminology of the relevant field is used correctly, and whether the parts of the study are arranged in accordance with an academic study.
• Translation articles that successfully complete the preliminary assessment stage are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief in terms of their suitability to the journal's aims and scope and their contribution to the field. The Editor-in-Chief assigns peer reviewers for suitable works.
• Author(s) of submissions deemed unsuitable and rejected during the editorial review process shall be notified within one month of the submission date, along with a report explaining the reasons for rejection.
• At the end of the editorial evaluation process, at least two peer reviewers are assigned using the blind review method for suitable works, and the peer review process is initiated.
3. Peer Review
• tarilyazımı journal employs a double-blind peer review process.
• A minimum of two peer reviewers, either from the designated pool of our journal or qualified in the relevant field of study, will be assigned to assess the article within a maximum timeframe of two weeks from the initial submission.
• In the double-blind review process, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed. Consequently, authors are required to remove any identifying information when submitting their manuscripts to the system.
• In this process, the article proposal is evaluated by the peer reviewers in accordance with the form below.
• The time given to the peer reviewers for the evaluation process is 15 days. In line with the demands of the reviewers, an additional 15 days may be granted to the reviewers at the end of the period. Correction suggestions from reviewers or editors must be completed by the authors within 1 month in line with the "correction instructions". Otherwise, the article is withdrawn from the evaluation process. Responsibility for this matter belongs entirely to the authors.
• As a result of the negative opinion of one of the reviewers about the article during the evaluation process, the article is sent to a third reviewer. As a result of the third reviewer's negative evaluation of the article, the article is returned to the author(s) by the editor and the evaluation process of the article ends.
• The author(s) are responsible for making the corrections suggested by the reviewers. In cases where the author(s) do not agree with the opinions of the peer reviewers, they can write a defense to the editor explaining their opinions based on evidence. In line with this defense letter, a new reviewer may be appointed to the study or the article may be accepted for publication with the opinion of the editor.
4. Decision
• At this stage, the final decision (acceptance or rejection) letter of the field editor about the article proposal is created and sent to the author.
• The articles whose evaluation process is completed and accepted for publication are sent to the layout editor.
• The articles whose layout process is completed are published in the first issue following the publication schedule.
Examples of forms used in the evaluation process:
1- Preliminary Evaluation Form
2- Peer Review Form