Evaluation and Peer Review Process

Karadeniz International Scientific Journal evaluates all submitted scholarly works through a double-blind peer review process. Within this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential.

To ensure the integrity of the review process, authors must remove names, institutional information, acknowledgements, and any other identifying information from manuscript files.

All evaluation procedures are conducted in accordance with international ethical standards and the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Initial Evaluation (Editorial Screening)

• All manuscripts submitted to the journal are first examined by the Editor-in-Chief.
• The Editor-in-Chief forwards the manuscript to the relevant Associate Editor or, where necessary, to the Technical Editor.
• The Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript with reference to:
  • fit with the journal?s aim and scope;
  • academic originality and contribution;
  • compliance with the author guidelines;
  • adherence to ethical standards.

Submissions that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without being sent to external review (desk rejection).

2. Reviewer Assignment and Review Process

• Manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening are sent by the Associate Editor to at least two independent reviewers, preferably from different institutions, who are experts in the relevant field.
• Reviewers conduct their evaluations in line with the principles of scientific objectivity, impartiality, and confidentiality.
• Based on the review reports, the following decisions may be made:
  • Accept
  • Minor / Major Revision
  • Reject
• If reviewer reports are contradictory or insufficient, the Associate Editor may appoint an additional reviewer.
• The Associate Editor evaluates reviewer reports in terms of content, quality, and consistency and may request an additional report or assign a new reviewer where necessary.

3. Associate Editor Evaluation

• The Associate Editor prepares a comprehensive editorial assessment regarding the scientific quality and publishability of the manuscript, taking reviewer reports into account.
• On the basis of this assessment, the manuscript may be:
  • returned to the author for revision;
  • rejected;
  • forwarded to the next stage with a recommendation for acceptance.
• For revised submissions, the Associate Editor is responsible for examining the authors? revisions and the response to reviewers in detail.
• Where necessary, the Associate Editor may send the manuscript back to reviewers or request further revision.

4. Revision Process

• Authors must complete the revisions requested by reviewers and editors within the specified period.
• All modifications should be explained in a detailed response to reviewers document.
• The Associate Editor may send the revised manuscript for an additional round of peer review if deemed necessary.

5. Final Decision

• The final decision on acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
• Where justified on scientific grounds, the Editor-in-Chief may reach a decision different from the recommendations of reviewers and the Associate Editor.

6. Pre-Publication Process

• Accepted manuscripts undergo:
  • language and copyediting checks;
  • typesetting and final proofreading.
• They are published after author approval has been obtained.

7. Relation to the Fee Policy

The journal?s fee policy is described separately on another page. Editorial evaluation and peer review are carried out independently of any payment and solely on the basis of scholarly criteria.