Manuscripts submitted to our journal are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process. In this method, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process. Authors can recommend up to 3 experts to review their manuscripts. The institutional address and email address of the suggested reviewers must be provided by the authors. However, the final decision to use the suggested reviewers belongs to only subject editor.
The full text of manuscripts submitted to our journal must be uploaded to the system (or e-mailed) in Word format, prepared according to the journal’s template and writing guidelines. Additionally, authors are required to upload the iThenticate or Turnitin evaluation report and the copyright form, signed and in PDF format, to the system.
Articles submitted to our journal are first reviewed for compliance with the writing guidelines. Manuscripts which are found to have deficiencies in this regard are returned to the authors with a request for necessary corrections. Those deemed compliant are forwarded to the editor-in-chief. During this stage, manuscripts that are not suitable for the journal's aim and scope, lack originality, or fail to comply with publication policies are rejected. Manuscripts approved by both the editor-in-chief and the editorial officer are sent to the relevant subject editor, and those deemed suitable proceed to the reviewer assignment process. The subject editor invites at least two reviewers to evaluate the manuscript, selecting them either from the journal's reviewer pool or from other experts suitable for the manuscript's field. Additionally, the corresponding author may be asked to suggest at least three reviewers; however, whether these suggested reviewers are invited is at the discretion of the subject editor. Lastly, if the content of the manuscript is relevant, it is sent to the statistics editor for evaluation of statistical analyses.
Peer reviews are conducted based on the manuscript's originality, methodology, compliance with ethical standards, coherent presentation of results and conclusions, and its contribution to the literature. If the two reviewers have conflicting opinions regarding the publishability of the manuscript, a third reviewer may be assigned, or the subject editor may decide. If the reviewers' feedback suggests revisions, the manuscript is returned to the author for amendments, ensuring adherence to the double-blind review process. The authors must complete the requested revisions within one month. Timely revisions are reviewed by the relevant subject editor, who will make the final decision regarding the manuscript's acceptance or rejection. Revisions suggested by the reviewers are evaluated by the editor as either minor or major. If the revision is considered a major revision, the editor assesses the degree of changes and their feasibility after the revision. If necessary, the editor may decide to reject the manuscript at this stage. Finally, accepted manuscripts are sent to the language editor (especially for those written in English), those are evaluated in terms of language aspects, and if necessary, relevant corrections are requested from the authors.
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are initially pre-viewed within 7 days, and the authors are informed accordingly. For manuscripts passing the initial review, the assigned reviewers are given 3 weeks to complete their evaluations. Normally, the average time for a manuscript's acceptance or rejection is approximately 6 months.
The review evaluation process is performed according to the algorithm which is indicated below.
CLICK HERE to see the article evaluation process as a flow chart.