Turkish Academic Research Review operates a two-stage process for the evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the journal, namely editorial internal review and external peer review. Immediately after submission, the Editor-in-Chief checks the manuscript for compliance with the journal's purpose and scope and adherence to ethical standards in research and writing. The Editor-in-Chief then refers the manuscripts that comply with the journal's editorial policy to the Deputy Editor for editorial review. The first internal reviewer is selected from among the Associate Editors. The Deputy Editor reviews the article for compliance with the journal's editorial guidelines and subjects the article to Turnitin scanning for plagiarism detection. In this process, the identity of the internal referee is open to the author and the identity of the author is open to the referee. The other two internal referees are then selected from among the members of the Editorial Board. The internal reviewers evaluate the article in terms of subject, method and results and decide whether the article should be included in the detailed review process. At the external review stage, two external referees are selected by the Field Editor from among the experts who have research on the subject of the article. If there are no experts in the field of the article, the referees are selected from among researchers with a PhD degree in that discipline. The referees evaluate the article in detail in terms of its subject, method and results, and give their opinion on whether it should be published or not. If both referee reports are positive, the manuscript is accepted for publication with the decision of the Editor-in-Chief. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the manuscript is sent to a third referee. Studies are accepted for publication with the positive decision of at least two referees. The manuscript accepted for publication is read by the Editor-in-Chief for the last time. It is then sent for English language control. Articles that are ready for publication are published together with the referee reports. The transparent refereeing model is fully suitable for journals using single and double-blind refereeing models.

Review Time: Pre-Publication
Number of Reviewers: Three Internal Reviewers (Editorial Review) - Two External Reviewers (Peer Review)
Author-Referee Interaction: Mediates all interactions between editors, reviewers and authors.
Referee Interaction: Reviewers can only communicate with editors.
Time in Review: Average 70 Days / 10 Weeks
Suicide Prevention Similarity Screening: In Progress - Turnitin


Article Review Process
1. Editor-in-Chief Review: Immediately after submission, the Editor-in-Chief pre-checks the manuscript for compliance with the journal's purpose and scope and adherence to ethical standards in research and writing. The Editor-in-Chief then refers the manuscripts that comply with the journal's editorial policy to the Deputy Editor for Editorial (Internal) Review.

2. Editorial (Internal) Review: At this stage, three internal reviewers take part.
Internal Reviewer 1 (Review Type: Open Review)

The first internal reviewer is selected by the Editor-in-Chief from among the Associate Editors. The Associate Editor reviews the manuscript for conformity with the journal's editorial guidelines and subjects the manuscript to a Turnitin scan to detect plagiarism. The identity of the internal referee is visible to the author and the identity of the author is visible to the referee.
Internal Referee 2 and 3 (Referee Type: Double Blind Review)
Two internal reviewers are selected by the Deputy Editor from among the members of the Editorial Board according to their areas of expertise. The internal reviewers evaluate the article in terms of subject, methodology and results and decide whether the article should be included in the peer-review process for further evaluation. During the process, the identity of the internal reviewers is kept confidential to the author and the identity of the author is kept confidential to the reviewers.

3. Referee (External Review) Process: At this stage, two external referees take part.
External Reviewers 1 and 2 (Review Type: Double Blind Review)
Two external referees are selected by the Field Editor from among the researchers who have conducted research on the subject of the article. If there are no referees who have conducted research on the subject of the article, the referees are selected from among researchers with a PhD degree in that discipline. The referees evaluate the article in detail in terms of its subject, method and results and express their opinions on whether the article should be published or not. If both referee reports are positive, the manuscript is accepted for publication with the decision of the Editor-in-Chief. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the manuscript is sent to a third referee. Manuscripts can be published with the positive decision of at least two referees. During the process, external referees cannot learn the identity of the author and the author cannot learn the identity of the referees.
During the refereeing process, the referees are expected to make their evaluations taking into account the following points.

1) Does the article contain new and important information?
2) Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article?
3) Is the methodology thoroughly and clearly described?
4) Are the interpretations and conclusions substantiated by the findings?
5) Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
6) Is the language quality adequate?

Reviewer Forms:
1. Preliminary Review Form
2. Article Evaluation Form
3. Book Review Form

Preparation of the Article for Publication: The manuscript accepted for publication is read for the last time by the Editor-in-Chief. It is then submitted to the Language Editor for English language control. The author is asked to revise the text in line with the requests of the Editor-in-Chief and the Language Editor. The revised text is sent to typesetting by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief plans the issue in which the typeset articles will be published.

Advantages of Transparent Peer Review: As an author, you will receive a higher quality, more constructive review process. Published reports provide great examples for researchers who are not experienced in publishing articles. Transparent peer review means more accountability. There is less likelihood of peer process fraud, bias or manipulation of results in this model. Post-Publication Comments: Published articles are promoted on social media platforms and comments by platform users are tracked.

Ethical Violation Notifications: Notifications of errors and ethical violations regarding published articles are tracked via turkisharr@gmail.com e-mail account and reviewed by the Editorial Board.

Editor's Responsibilities
1) The editor evaluates manuscripts for scientific content without regard to the ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious beliefs or political philosophy of the authors.
2) The Editor conducts a fair double-blind peer-review of manuscripts submitted for publication and ensures that all information about submitted manuscripts is kept confidential before publication.
3) The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. Reviewers and the editorial board cannot discuss manuscripts with other people. The anonymity of reviewers must be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share a reviewer's review with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.
4) The Editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. It is also his/her responsibility to issue a correction note or retraction when necessary.
5) The Editor does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and reviewers. He/she has full authority only to appoint reviewers and is responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of manuscripts in the Journal.
1) The editor evaluates manuscripts for scientific content without regard to the ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious beliefs or political philosophy of the authors.
2) The Editor conducts a fair double-blind peer-review of manuscripts submitted for publication and ensures that all information about submitted manuscripts is kept confidential before publication.
3) The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. Reviewers and the editorial board cannot discuss manuscripts with other people. The anonymity of reviewers must be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share a reviewer's review with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.
4) The Editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. It is also his/her responsibility to issue a correction note or retraction when necessary.
5) The Editor does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and reviewers. He/she has full authority only to appoint reviewers and is responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of manuscripts in the Journal.

Responsibilities of Referees
1) Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest related to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. Their judgment should be objective.
2) Reviewers should ensure that all information about submitted manuscripts is kept confidential and should notify the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement or plagiarism on the part of the author.
3) A reviewer who feels unable to review the subject matter of a manuscript or knows that immediate review will be impossible should notify the editor and be excused from the review process.

Referee Guide
Please follow the steps below to evaluate an article submitted from the system:
1. Log in with your username and password.
2. Log in by selecting Turkish Academic Research Review Journal from the top menu
3. Click on the "Articles in Process" button on the left side.
4. On the page that opens, you will see the name and status of the article you are asked to evaluate. Click on the article name.
5. On the new page that opens, you will be asked whether you agree to evaluate the article. To accept, you must click on the "I want to evaluate" button in the green section.
6. After accepting the evaluation, you can download the article file by clicking on the "Evaluation Version" title in the dialog section. You can evaluate the article by clicking on the "Complete and Submit Form" link on the same page. Note: The online review form opens smoothly in the CHROME browser; in EXPLORER, errors may occur due to security settings.
7. After completing the entire form, you should click the "Save and Finish" button.
8. If there is an additional file that you have made corrections on, you can upload it to the system from the FILE ADD-SEND section.