Article submission, evaluation, and communication processes to the Turkish History Education Journal are carried out only through the DergiPark system. Articles submitted to our journal are subjected to a four-stage evaluation process.           

Step-1. Preliminary Evaluation

Within the scope of this evaluation;

• Manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an evaluation conducted by the Journal Secretary utilizing the "📄 Preliminary Evaluation Form.pdf " outlined below.
  - During the preliminary evaluation phase, the first step involves assessing the submissions for adherence to the journal's template and writting guidelines.
  - The second step entails verifying the similarity report of the manuscripts (through tools such as Turnitin, and intinal.net). The journal's publication policy stipulates that manuscripts submitted for publication must not exceed a similarity rate of 20%.
• Manuscripts failing to satisfy the aforementioned criteria are rejected during the preliminary review phase.
• Articles that successfully navigate these stages are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for further editorial assessment.
• The preliminary evaluation process is completed within a timeframe of 10 days.

Step-2. Editorial Review

• Articles that successfully complete the preliminary evaluation stage are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief.
• The Editor-in-Chief reviews the work in terms of content and originality and evaluates whether it is consistent with the journal's objectives, scope, and publication principles. At this stage, a reasoned rejection letter for the work is sent by the Editor-in-Chief to the responsible author within 15 days.
• Manuscripts that are consistent with the scope and publication principles of the journal are sent by the Editor-in-Chief to the Ethics and Statistics editors when necessary.
• For works deemed suitable by the Ethics and Statistics Editors, the Editor-in-Chief appoints a Field Editor.
• The field editor manages the process by following the steps outlined in the “📄 Section Editor Checklist.pdf ” file. 
• At this stage, the field editor checks whether the article is consistent with the academic field of the relevant area, whether the academic terminology of the relevant area is used correctly, and whether the sections of the work are organized in a manner appropriate for an academic work.
• If the work is deemed unsuitable for submission to reviewers by the field editor and is rejected, the author(s) are informed within one month of the submission date with a report explaining the reasons for rejection.
• For works deemed suitable for submission to reviewers by the field editor, the peer review process is initiated.
   

Step 3: Peer Review Process

1. Reviewer Assignment
   Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewer assignments are made by the editor, and the process is monitored editorially.
2. Type of Peer Review (Double-Blind Review)
   The journal employs a double-blind peer review system, in which both author and reviewer identities are kept confidential. Authors are required to remove all identifying information from their manuscripts prior to submission.
3. Ethical Principles
   Reviewers are required to adhere to the principle of confidentiality and to declare any potential conflicts of interest to the editor.
4. Evaluation Criteria
   Manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria:
   • Originality and contribution to the literature
   • Methodological rigor and scientific consistency
   • Theoretical framework and depth of analysis
   • Academic writing quality and clarity of expression

5. Review Guidielines

   Reviewers conduct this process in accordance with the steps and criteria outlined in the 📄 Article Review Form.pdf  file. 

6.  Timeline
   Reviewers are generally expected to complete their evaluations within 2–4 weeks. Additional time may be granted by the editor when necessary.
7. Reviewer Decisions
   Based on the reviewers’ reports, the following decisions may be made:
   • Accept
   • Minor revision
   • Major revision
   • Reject
8. Revision Process
   Authors are required to complete the requested revisions within the timeframe specified by the editor. Manuscripts that are not revised within the given period may be withdrawn from the evaluation process.
9. Response to Reviewer Comments
   Authors may submit a reasoned response to the editor if they disagree with reviewer comments, supported by academic evidence.
10. Additional Reviewer Assignment
    In cases of significant discrepancies between reviewer reports, the editor may seek an additional reviewer’s opinion.
11. Decision Authority
    The decision regarding the manuscript rests with the editor. The editor may make a decision based on reviewer reports or request further evaluation if deemed necessary. The editor may request additional revisions from the author when deemed necessary. 

12. General Principle
    The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of academic integrity, impartiality, transparency, and scholarly quality.

     

Step 4: Editorial Decision

1. Section Editor Evaluation
   The Section Editor evaluates manuscripts that have completed the peer review process in terms of scientific merit, originality, methodological soundness, and contribution to the literature, and submits a reasoned recommendation (acceptance, revision, or rejection) to the Editor-in-Chief.
2. Editor-in-Chief Decision
   The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript by considering the Section Editor’s recommendation and evaluates it in terms of scientific quality, ethical compliance, and journal policies. The Editor-in-Chief may request revisions as deemed necessary. The final decision (acceptance or rejection) is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
3. Ethical and Publication Compliance Check
   At the acceptance stage, the manuscript undergoes a final check for publication ethics, plagiarism screening, conflict of interest disclosure, and copyright compliance.
4. Production Process
   A Production Editor is assigned to accepted manuscripts. The following processes are completed at this stage:
   • Copyediting (language and formatting corrections)
   • Typesetting (layout preparation)
   • Proofreading (author approval of final version)
5. DOI Assignment and Publication
   Upon completion of the production process, a DOI is assigned to the manuscript, and it is published immediately in accordance with the journal’s continuous publication model.

Forms used in the evaluation process:
1- 📄 Preliminary Evaluation Form.pdf 

2- 📄 Section Editor Checklist.pdf 

3- 📄 Article Review Form.pdf