Peer Review

Steps for the Peer-Review Process are given as follows.

1. Submission of the article
The corresponding or sending author sends the article to the journal. This is usually done through the Dergipark platform at Alternatively, it can be delivered from

2. Editorial Office review
The editorial office checks that the article complies with the requirements described in the journal's author guidelines. The quality of the article is not evaluated at this point. At the same time, the office evaluates the article considering its scope, originality, and values. The office may reject the article at this stage.

3. Invitation to Arbitrators
The editor sends invitations to those whom it believes to be suitable referees. As responses are received, more invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of reviewers are secured - this is usually 2, but there is some variation between journals. In case of equality in decisions, the opinion of the third referee is also taken.

4. Response to Invitations
Potential reviewers consider an invitation to their expertise, conflicts of interest, and usability. They then accept or decline the review invitation. If possible, while dropping, alternative reviewers may also suggest.

5. Reviewer's Evaluation
The reviewer takes the time to read the article several times. The first reading is used to form the first impression of the work. If major issues are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the article without further study. Otherwise, they will read the article a few more times and take notes to create a detailed point study. The review is then sent to the journal with the reviewer's recommendation (for example, to revise, accept, or reject the article).

6. Evaluation of Peer Review
The editor considers all returned reviews before making a decision. If the reviews are very different, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to get some extra insight before making a decision.

7. Communication of the Decision
The editor sends a decision e-mail to the author, including the relevant referee comments.