1. Preliminary Review and Technical Check (Secretariat) (1–2 Weeks)
The author submits the manuscript and all required supplementary documents (Copyright/Publication Rights Transfer Form, Ethics Committee Approval, mandatory declaration forms, etc.) through the Journal’s online submission system.
The Secretariat examines the submitted files solely for technical and administrative compliance. This review includes conformity with the Journal’s formatting and submission guidelines, completeness of mandatory documents, and compliance with required file formats. Scientific content is not evaluated at this stage.
If missing documents, incorrect formatting, or non-compliance with submission guidelines are identified, the manuscript is returned to the author for correction.
Manuscripts deemed technically appropriate are subjected to a similarity check (plagiarism screening). Submissions with similarity reports that comply with the Journal’s policies are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for editorial evaluation.
2. Editorial Evaluation (1–2 Weeks)
Manuscripts that pass the technical review and similarity screening are subjected to the editorial evaluation process.
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript in terms of its relevance to the aims and scope of the Journal, originality, scientific contribution, and overall methodological adequacy. At this stage, the Editor-in-Chief is authorized to reject manuscripts without initiating the peer review process or to assign the manuscript to the relevant Editor or Section Editor for further evaluation.
When deemed necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may manage the editorial process directly or conduct the evaluation jointly with the Section Editor.
Decisions made during the editorial evaluation process are based solely on scientific criteria and the Journal’s publication policies; the authors’ institutional affiliation, academic title, or personal characteristics are not taken into consideration.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review (2–4 Weeks)
Manuscripts that pass the editorial evaluation are subjected to the double-blind peer review process under the supervision of the Section Editor.
The Section Editor appoints at least two (2) external reviewers who are experts in the relevant field, independent, and free of any conflicts of interest. The review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of double-blind peer review, whereby authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another throughout the process.
In cases where there is a discrepancy between reviewer reports or where additional expert opinion is deemed necessary for editorial decision-making, a third or fourth reviewer may be invited by the Section Editor or, when required, by the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewer evaluations are carried out based on the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and ethical compliance of the manuscript.
4. Decision and Acceptance (1–2 Weeks)
Following the completion of the peer review process, the reviewer reports are evaluated by the Section Editor.
Acceptance of a manuscript is possible based on at least two favorable reviewer reports and the editorial assessment conducted in light of the reviewers’ comments. Reviewer reports are considered advisory in the editorial decision-making process; the final decision rests with the Section Editor.
When deemed necessary, the Section Editor may submit the manuscript to the Editors or Editor-in-Chief for information and further opinion.
In cases where revision is requested, authors are asked to make the required revisions in accordance with the comments of the reviewers and editors. Revised manuscripts may be sent for additional peer review when considered necessary.
5. Language Editing (1–2 Weeks)
Manuscripts written in English that have successfully completed the peer review process and received an acceptance decision are reviewed by a Language Editor in terms of linguistic fluency, academic style, and terminological consistency.
The language editing process is carried out after the scientific content and peer review evaluation have been completed. This stage is limited solely to linguistic and formal revisions; no evaluation or modification is made to the scientific content, findings, results, or interpretations of the manuscript.
Revisions suggested by the Language Editor are communicated to the authors, who are requested to make the necessary corrections.
6. Typesetting and Proofreading (2–4 Weeks)
Following the completion of the editorial evaluation process and acceptance of the manuscript, the article is forwarded to the Layout Editor for typesetting with the approval of the Editor-in-Chief.
Once typesetting is completed, the manuscript is sent to the author for final review and approval. This stage constitutes the final technical check prior to publication.
At this stage, the author’s corrections are limited solely to typesetting, spelling, and formatting errors. No changes to the scientific content, data presentation, or conclusions are permitted.
7. Publication
Once the manuscript has been finalized and approved by the author following the proofreading stage, a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is assigned and the article is scheduled for publication in the relevant issue.
The article is published online in accordance with the Journal’s publication policies and made available for scientific access. Published articles are maintained as permanently accessible within the scope of the Journal’s archiving and access policies.