Manuscript Evaluation Policy: Double-Blind Refereeing
1. Articles that have not been published before or that are not yet under evaluation in another journal for publication and that are approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
2. Submitted articles going through a Pre-review stage are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software.
3. All studies are first evaluated by the editor-in-chief in terms of suitability for the journal. Selected articles are sent to at least two national/international referees for evaluation by double-blind refereeing.
4. The editor-in-chief makes a fair double-blind peer-review of the articles submitted for publication.
5. The editor-in-chief is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The decision of the editor-in-chief is final.

Manuscript Evaluation Process
Type of Referee: Double-Blind Refereeing
Double Blind Refereeing: After the plagiarism check, the appropriate articles are evaluated by the editor-in-chief in terms of originality, methodology, importance of the subject and compatibility with the scope of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief ensures that the articles submitted for publication undergo a fair double-blind peer-review. Selected articles are sent to at least two national/international referees for evaluation. If the referees deem it necessary, changes are made by the author. The Editorial Board decides whether to publish the text corrected by the author.
Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Plagiarism Prevention Similarity Scan: In Progress – iThenticate
Number of Reviewers: Two or Three External Reviewers (Peer Review)
Decision: Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two referees.
Suspected Ethical Violation: Reviewers should notify the Editor when they suspect research or publication misconduct. The editor is responsible for carrying out the necessary actions by following the COPE recommendations.

Process Stages
Preliminary Review
The article sent to Trabzon Theology Journal is taken into preliminary examination by the Editor-in-Chief as soon as possible. The Editor-in-Chief pre-checks the article for compliance with the journal's purpose and scope, and adherence to ethical standards in research and writing. The initial decision for preliminary review is usually made within a few days of submission. If it is decided that Trabzon Theology Journal is not the right journal for the study, the decision is immediately notified to the authors so that they can send their work to another place without delay.

Field Editor Review
The study, which has passed the Preliminary Review, is examined by the relevant field editor in terms of problematic and academic language-style. It also subjects it to iThenticate scanning for plagiarism detection.

Copy Editor Review
The article, which passes the review of the field editor, is sent to the control of the copy editor. The Copy Editor examines the article for Trabzon Theology Journal's copy rules, ISNAD citation system, abstract, keywords …etc.and writes correction notes on the text if necessary.

Referee Process (Academic Evaluation)
The study, which has passed the review of the field editor, is submitted to the evaluation of at least two referees who have a doctoral thesis, book or article on the subject. The arbitration process is carried out in secrecy within the framework of the double-blind arbitration practice. The referee is requested to either state his opinion and opinion about the work he has examined on the text or justify it with a minimum 150-word explanation on the online referee form. If the author does not agree with the referee's opinions, he is given the right to object and defend his opinions. Provides mutual communication between the field editor, author and referee, while maintaining confidentiality. If both of the referee reports are positive, the study is submitted to the Editorial Board with a proposal to evaluate its publication. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third referee. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two referees.
In cases where serious research misconduct is suspected, the article may also be viewed by the Ethics Editor of Trabzon Theology Journal and third parties deemed appropriate by the editor.

Correction Stage
If the referees want correction in the text they have examined, the relevant reports are sent to the author and he is asked to correct his work. The author presents his corrections to the field editor by specifying them in red.

Field Editor Control
The field editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text. The corrected text is then sent to the referee who requested the correction.

Referee Control
The referee requesting correction checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

English Language Check
Studies that have passed the peer-review process are reviewed by the English Language Editor, and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author.

Editorial Board Review
The articles that pass technical, academic and linguistic reviews are examined by the Editorial Board and the final publication status is decided. The Editorial Board takes its decisions by majority vote. The Editorial Board takes its decisions by majority vote. In case of a tie, the final decision is made in favor of the Editor-in-Chief's decision.

Typesetting and Layout Phase
The typesetting and layout of the studies decided to be published by the Editorial Board are made ready for publication.

Final Reading
After the final reading process of the works whose layout processes are completed, the journal is published.

Data Submission to National and International Indexes
The data of the published issue is sent to the relevant indexes within 15 days.

Authors Responsibilities
The author must comply with research and publication training.
The author should not attempt to publish the same work in more than one journal.
The author should fully indicate the works he has used in the writing of the article in the bibliography.

Editor's Responsibilities
The editor evaluates the articles in terms of scientific content, regardless of the ethnic origin, gender, citizenship, religious belief or political opinion of the authors.
The editor makes a fair double-blind peer-review of the articles submitted for publication and ensures that all information about the submitted articles is kept confidential before publication.
The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential, and this is a privileged interaction. The referees and editorial board cannot discuss the articles with other people. Anonymity of referees should be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share one reviewer's review with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.
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 implement a withdrawal as necessary.
Editor; does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees. Only the referee has full authority to appoint and the Editorial Board is responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of the articles in the journal.

Responsibilities of the Referees
Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors and/or research funders.
The evaluations of the referees should be objective.
The language and style used by the referees should not be offensive to the author.
Reviewers must ensure that all information regarding submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published.
Reviewers should notify the editor if they notice copyright infringement or plagiarism in the work they are reviewing.
A reviewer who feels inadequate to review an article or thinks that he/she will not be able to complete the review within the specified time should withdraw from the review process.
During the refereeing process, the referees are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following: Does the article contain new and important information? / Does the abstract clearly and neatly describe the content of the article? / Is the method coherent and clearly defined? / Are the comments and conclusions made substantiated by the findings? / Are adequate references given to other studies in the field? / Is the language quality adequate?