Article Review System

Article Review System

Review Stage: Pre-Publication

Number of Reviewers: Three Internal Reviewers (Editorial Review) – Two External Reviewers (Peer Review)

Author–Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.

Reviewer Interaction: Reviewers may communicate only with the editors.

Average Review Time: 60 days / 8 weeks

Plagiarism Check: Conducted – intihal.net and iThenticate

Article Review Process

1. Editor-in-Chief Review

Immediately after submission, the Editor-in-Chief performs a preliminary review to ensure that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims and scope and adheres to ethical standards in research and writing.

2. Editorial Board Review: Internal Review – 1 (Single-Blind Review)

Two internal reviewers are selected from among the Editorial Board members based on their expertise. They evaluate the manuscript in terms of topic, methodology, and findings, and decide whether it should proceed to the detailed peer-review stage.

3. Preliminary Review and Similarity Check: Internal Review – 2 (Single-Blind Review)

An associate editor is assigned as an internal reviewer to check the manuscript for conformity with the journal’s writing guidelines. The reviewer then generates a similarity report using Turnitin.

4. External Review: Double-Blind Peer Review

At this stage, two external reviewers are appointed. The Field Editor selects external reviewers from researchers who have conducted studies on the subject of the manuscript. If no reviewer with specific expertise is available, reviewers holding a doctoral degree in the relevant field may be appointed.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript in detail regarding its topic, methodology, and results, and provide their recommendations for publication.

If both reviewer reports are positive, the manuscript is accepted for publication at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. If one reviewer provides a negative assessment, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. A manuscript can be published only if at least two reviewers offer positive recommendations. Throughout the process, external reviewers cannot learn the identity of the author, and authors cannot learn the identity of the reviewers.

During the review process, reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations by taking the following points into consideration.

1. Does the manuscript include new and significant information?
2. Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
3. Is the methodology clearly and coherently defined?
4. Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
5. Are sufficient references provided to other studies in the field?
6. Is the language quality adequate?

Preparation of the Manuscript for Publication

1. The accepted manuscript is read one final time by the Editor-in-Chief, then submitted to the Language Editor for English language editing.
2. The author is asked to revise the manuscript according to the requests of the Editor-in-Chief and the Language Editor.
3. The revised manuscript is then sent to typesetting. The issue in which the article will be published is determined by the Editor-in-Chief.

Ethics Violation Notifications

Notifications regarding errors or ethical violations in published articles are followed through mataddergi@gmail.com and reviewed by the Editorial Board.

Data Submission to National and International Indexes

Printed copies of the published issue are sent to domestic and international reference libraries within 60 days.

Article metadata is submitted to relevant indexing services within 15 days.

Responsibilities of the Editor

1. The Editor evaluates manuscripts based on scientific content without considering the authors’ ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religious beliefs, or political views.
2. The Editor ensures a fair double-blind peer-review process and keeps all information related to submitted manuscripts confidential until publication.
3. The Editor informs reviewers that manuscripts contain confidential information and must not be discussed with others. Reviewer anonymity must be maintained. In certain cases, to clarify specific points, the Editor may share a reviewer’s comments with another reviewer.
4. The Editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. When necessary, the Editor may issue corrections or retractions.
5. The Editor prevents conflicts of interest among authors, editors, and reviewers. The Editor has full authority in assigning reviewers and is responsible for the final decision regarding publication.