Blind refereeing is an important method applied to ensure that scientific publications are published with the highest level of quality. This method is one of the cornerstones of scientific publishing and is adopted by reputable journals. At the Journal of Social Policy, our referees play a critical role in maintaining the high standards of the journal and all articles go through the blind review process outlined below.

PRE-EVALUATION

The preliminary evaluation process consists of two stages. Firstly, all submitted articles are checked for similarity with a plagiarism checker. Articles with 20% or more similarity are returned to the authors. In the second stage, the manuscripts are analysed for compliance with the journal template and spelling rules. Articles that successfully pass this process are sent to the Editor-in-Chief for the refereeing process. Authors of articles rejected at the preliminary control stage are notified within 1 week.

EDITOR'S ASSESSMENT

The editor-in-chief decides whether the manuscripts referred to him/her should be included in the refereeing process or rejected. Articles rejected at this stage are not sufficiently original, have serious conceptual or methodological deficiencies, have inadequate or poor English/Turkish language skills, or are outside the purpose and scope of the journal.

At this stage, the authors of the rejected manuscript are notified within 10 days of the editor-in-chief's decision. For all manuscripts rejected without review, the editor will provide feedback and, if possible, suggest other suitable outlets.

REFEREE EVALUATION

If the article is found suitable for the refereeing process, it is sent to three referees who are experts in their fields. The positive report of at least two referees is required for the article to be published.

Journal of Social Policy applies a double blind review process. In this process, the identities of both authors and referees are kept confidential. Therefore, authors should not include their identity information directly or indirectly in their articles.

HOW SHOULD THE REFEREE EVALUATION BE?

Selected manuscripts are sent to at least two national/international referees for evaluation; the decision on publication is made by the editor after the edits made by the authors in line with the requests of the referees and the refereeing process.

During the review process, referees are expected to avoid personal comments towards the author(s) and to limit criticism to the relevant focus of the study.

If the manuscript is accepted or rejected without any criticism or suggestion, the review will be considered invalid. The manuscript will be sent to another referee.

Superficial evaluations without paying attention to the following points will be considered invalid.

The following points should be taken into consideration in the article evaluation process:

Clarity and comprehensibility of expression
Presentation of purpose, hypothesis and research questions
Method design and ethical considerations
Appropriate association of the subject with the literature
Adequacy of analysing the data
Appropriate linking of findings and objectives
Associating interpretations with findings
Compliance with language rules and terminology of the relevant field
Innovation/contribution level to the related field

As a result of the evaluation of the article, the referee may recommend one of the following options by presenting the reasons:

The article is suitable for publication.
The article can be published after minor corrections. (It does not need to be seen again by the referee.)
The article can be published after necessary minor corrections. (It will be seen again by the referee.)
The article can be published after necessary major corrections.
The article is not suitable for publication.

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 makes it clear to the reviewers that the 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 persons. Care should be taken to keep the identity of the reviewers confidential.