1) Articles that have not been previously published or are not currently under review by another journal and approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
2) Submitted articles that pass the initial check are scanned for plagiarism using the iThenticate software.
3) Turkish Journal for the Psychology of Religion conducts a double-blind peer review process. All submissions are first evaluated by the editor for suitability for the journal. Articles deemed suitable are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the article.
4)The editor evaluates articles regardless of the authors' ethnic background, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, or political philosophy. Submitted articles are ensured to undergo a fair double-blind peer review process.
5)The editor does not allow conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers.
6)The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The editor's decision is final.
7)Editors do not involve themselves in decisions regarding articles written by themselves, family members, or colleagues, or concerning products or services in which the editor is involved. Such submissions are subject to all regular procedures of the journal.

• Reviewers should ensure that all information about submitted manuscripts remains confidential until the manuscript is published, and should report to the editor if they notice any copyright infringement or plagiarism on the part of the author.

• If the referee does not feel qualified in the subject matter of the manuscript or is unlikely to be able to provide timely feedback, he/she should inform the editor and ask him/her not to involve himself/herself in the review process.

• During the review process, the editor should make it clear to reviewers that manuscripts submitted for review are the private property of the authors and that this is a privileged communication. Reviewers and editorial board members may not discuss manuscripts with other individuals. Care should be taken to keep the identity of the reviewers confidential.

Review Process

Type of Review: Double-Blind
Double-Blind: After plagiarism checking, suitable articles are evaluated by the editor for originality, methodology, significance of the topic, and compatibility with the scope of the journal. The editor ensures that articles undergo a fair double-blind peer review process and, if the article conforms to formal requirements, submits it for evaluation by at least two reviewers, domestic and/or international. Upon review, if the reviewers deem it necessary, the article is approved for publication after the authors make the requested changes.
Review Time: Pre-publication
Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Time Spent on Review: The time spent in the peer review process for research articles accepted by the Turkish Journal of Religious Psychology is approximately 64 days.
Acceptance Rate: We publish approximately 65% of the articles submitted to our journal.
Plagiarism Check: Yes - Articles are scanned with iThenticate to prevent plagiarism.
Number of Reviewers for Each Article: Two to three
Allowed Time: 20 days. This period can be extended by adding 10 days.
Decision: For an article to be accepted for publication by the editor, at least two reviewers must approve it.
Suspected Ethical Violations: Reviewers should inform the editor if they suspect research or publication misconduct. The editor is responsible for taking necessary actions following COPE recommendations.

• Upon submission, articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor for compliance with the journal's scope and writing guidelines. Articles deemed suitable are sent for blind peer review by at least two independent external reviewers. Reviewers are given 30 days to evaluate the articles, and if a reviewer does not respond within this period, a new reviewer is assigned. To be eligible for publication in the journal, an article must receive positive feedback from at least two reviewers. In cases where one reviewer provides a positive recommendation and the other provides a negative one, the article is referred to a third reviewer. Authors are responsible for implementing any revisions suggested by the reviewers. Articles that receive approval from the reviewers and pass the editorial board's scrutiny are entered into the publication process. The final formatting of the articles is done by the authors. Accepted articles are assigned a DOI number and included in the Early View section. They are later published in an appropriate issue based on the Editorial Board's decision. Once the final format is given to the articles and they enter the publication process, no changes can be made. Authors can withdraw their submissions during the pre-review stage, but once the articles are under review, they cannot be withdrawn. Reviewers do not have access to the identities of the authors, and authors do not have access to the identities of the reviewers. Ensuring confidentiality on this matter is the responsibility of the journal's editorial board.

• We aim to make a final decision about publication within 4 to 6 weeks after all articles have been submitted. If we offer a publication with revisions, we generally ask authors to upload their revised articles into the system within the following month.

• Accepted articles are published at https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tdpd. Once published, articles are selected for the next issue.

• As part of our commitment to readers and authors, Turkish Journal for the Psychology of Religion provides open access to articles. All our articles are freely accessible online.

• If you notice any errors in your published article, you must send an email to the editor, who will inform you whether the correction will be made.

Principles of Article Review Process for Editorial Staff Works

Editorial articles written by the journal's own editors and analysis articles do not undergo external peer review. Original research articles are sent to at least two external reviewers for blind peer review. During this process, the roles of those editors are suspended.

Author Responsibilities
Authors must adhere to research and publication ethics.
Authors should not attempt to publish the same work in multiple journals.
Authors must accurately cite all works used in the preparation of the article.

Editor Responsibilities
Editors evaluate articles based on their scientific content regardless of the authors' ethnic background, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, or political views.
Editors conduct a fair double-blind peer review of articles submitted for publication and ensure that all information regarding submitted articles is kept confidential until publication.
Editors inform reviewers that articles sent for review are confidential and a privileged communication. Reviewers and the editorial board may not discuss articles with others. Reviewer anonymity must be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share a reviewer's evaluation with other reviewers to clarify a specific point.
The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. They may publish a correction note or initiate retraction if necessary.
The editor does not allow conflicts of interest between authors, editors, and reviewers. They have full authority over reviewer selection, and the final decision on whether to publish articles in the journal lies with the Editorial Board.

Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest related to the research, authors, and/or research funders.
Reviews by reviewers should be objective.
The language and tone used by reviewers should not be offensive to the author.
Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality of all information related to the articles they review.
If reviewers detect copyright infringement or plagiarism in the reviewed work, they must report it to the editor.
A reviewer who feels inadequate to review a manuscript or cannot meet the review deadline should withdraw from the review process.

During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following criteria when evaluating manuscripts:
• Does the article contain new and significant information?
• Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
• Is the methodology described clearly and comprehensively?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
• Are there sufficient references to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality adequate?

Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Check
The article is reviewed by the editor for compliance with journal publication policies, academic writing rules, and the APA Citation System, and is subjected to plagiarism screening using the iThenticate program. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The similarity rate for plagiarism should be less than 20%. Even if the similarity rate is 1%, if proper citation and quotation rules are not followed, plagiarism may still occur. Therefore, authors must be aware of citation and quotation rules and apply them carefully:

Citation/Indirect Quotation: If reference is made to a thought, discussion, or observation from a source, and the cited view is expressed in the researcher's own words, in-text citation should be used. In this method, the citation is given in parentheses after the quotation (Author's Last Name, Year of Publication: Page Number). Citations are written in the same font size as the text. When an explanation about a topic is desired, a footnote can be given at the end of the page. If the reference is to a specific page or range of pages in the work, the page number must be given. If there is a reference to the entire work, meaning that the reader needs to examine the entire work, a footnote should be provided with the text "See." after the source.

Quotation/Paraphrase: If a section from the reference source is taken verbatim, without any alterations, it should be given "in double quotation marks" and the source should be indicated in parentheses after the text. Directly quoted passages within the quoted text are written using 'single quotation marks'. If the directly quoted portion exceeds three lines (more than forty words), it should be presented as a separate paragraph. It is preferable to use a font size one smaller than the normal text size and indent the entire paragraph from the left margin to distinguish long quotes from the main text. In the directly quoted text, some words, sentences, and paragraphs may be omitted as long as the meaning is not altered. Three dots (...) are placed in place of the omitted parts. It is not correct to simply write the portion directly quoted from a source without putting it in "double quotation marks" and only indicating the source at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be subject to allegations of publication ethics violation (Plagiarism). 

Peer Review (Academic Evaluation)
The work that has passed through the field editor's review is submitted for evaluation by at least two external reviewers who have a doctoral thesis, book, or article related to the subject matter. The peer review process is conducted in confidentiality within the framework of double-blind peer review. The reviewer is asked to either state their opinion and judgment on the reviewed work in the text or justify it on the online peer review form with a minimum of 150 words. The author has the right to object and defend their views if they disagree with the reviewer's opinions. The field editor facilitates mutual communication between the author and the reviewer, ensuring confidentiality. If both reviewers give positive recommendations, the work is submitted to the Editorial Board for consideration for publication. If one of the reviewers expresses a negative opinion, the work is sent to a third reviewer. Works can be published with the approval of at least two reviewers. Decisions on the publication of book and symposium evaluations and summaries of doctoral theses are made based on evaluations by at least two internal reviewers (relevant field editors and/or members of the editorial board).

Correction Stage
If the reviewers request corrections in the reviewed manuscript, the relevant reports are sent to the author, who is asked to make the necessary corrections to the work. The author makes the corrections with the "Track Changes" feature enabled in Word or indicates the changes in red. The revised text is then submitted to the field editor.

Reviewer Check
The reviewer requesting corrections checks whether the author has made the requested corrections to the manuscript.

Expansion of Abstract and Summary
Authors of works approved by two reviewers as "publishable" are asked to expand the "abstract" section of the articles to 300-305 words.

Turkish Language Check
Works that have passed through the peer review process are examined by the editor and requested to be corrected if necessary. The review process by the editor is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

English Language Check
Works that have passed through the Turkish language check are examined by the editor and requested to be corrected if necessary. The review process by the editor is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Editorial Board Review
Articles that have undergone technical, academic, and linguistic reviews by the editor are reviewed by the Editorial Board to decide whether they will be published and, if so, in which issue they will be included. The decision is made by a majority vote of the Board. In the case of a tie, the final decision is made in favor of the editor's decision.

Typesetting and Layout Stage
Works approved for publication by the Editorial Board are typeset and formatted for publication, then sent to the author for review. This stage takes up to 15 days.
Submission of Data to National and International Indexes
Data for the published issue is submitted to relevant indexes within 15 days.