Review Process
Double-Blind Peer Review and Evaluation Procedure
In order to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly work, Solem Juris employs a double-blind peer review system. This method forms the basis of an objective and impartial evaluation process. Peer review reports play a key role in maintaining the academic quality of the journal.
In the double-blind review process, both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain confidential. Authors must ensure that no personal or identifying information is included in the manuscript uploaded to the system.
The evaluation process—including the time required by the editorial board to assign appropriate reviewers—typically takes between 2 to 3 months.
Pre-Evaluation Process
All submissions to Solem Juris first undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial board. At this stage, manuscripts that do not align with the journal’s aims and scope, exhibit poor language quality in Turkish or English, contain major academic flaws, lack originality, or fail to meet publication policies are rejected.
For manuscripts where a clear decision cannot be made, evaluation is requested from editorial board members who are experts in the relevant field.
During the pre-evaluation process, manuscripts are first reviewed for compliance with the journal’s submission and formatting guidelines. The editorial board then evaluates the introduction and literature review, methodology, findings, conclusion, and discussion sections in terms of relevance, originality, and alignment with journal policy.
Manuscripts that pass this stage are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin or iThenticate, and only those with an acceptable similarity report (similarity should not be more than 20%) proceed to peer review.
Reviewer Assignment Process
Manuscripts that comply with the journal’s editorial policy and formatting rules, and meet the criteria of a scientific research article, are sent to two subject-matter expert reviewers.
Peer Review Process
Reviewers evaluate submissions based on the originality, methodology, ethical standards, presentation of findings and conclusions, and adequacy of references.
Reviewers are given up to 21 days to complete their evaluation.
A reviewer may:
- Recommend the article for publication with no changes;
- Recommend publication with minor revisions (to be accepted upon satisfactory revision);
- Recommend major revisions (to be accepted upon substantial revision);
- Recommend rejection (if the work does not meet academic standards).
If one reviewer recommends acceptance and the other recommends rejection, a third reviewer is assigned to evaluate the manuscript based on its originality and structure.
All reviewer reports are shared with the author. If language or writing style does not meet academic standards, a revision in tone or clarity may be requested.
After revisions are made, the reviewers re-evaluate the manuscript and may either approve it for publication or request further revisions.
The editorial board makes the final decision regarding publication.
Authors are encouraged to download and review all evaluation forms used by the journal (including the form and content pre-evaluation, section editor, and peer review forms) to better prepare their submissions.
At least two positive peer reviews are required for a manuscript to proceed to publication. If one reviewer gives a negative report, the editor-in-chief may either assign a third reviewer or reject the manuscript.
Once both reviews are received, the reviewers’ comments and suggested revisions are sent to the author. In addition to the peer reviewers’ comments, the editorial board may request further corrections related to compliance with journal formatting guidelines, spelling and grammar, section headings, completeness of content, or literature review adequacy.
Publication Process
Authors are given 10 to 20 days to complete any revisions requested by reviewers or editors. Additional time may be granted, when necessary, if it does not interfere with the journal’s publication schedule.
Manuscripts not revised within the given timeframe may, at the author's request, be rescheduled for publication in the next issue.
If an author chooses not to revise the manuscript, they must inform the editorial board, and the review process will be terminated. Manuscripts that receive revision requests but are not revised will not be reconsidered for future issues.
Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by reviewers.
Following reviewer approval, the Editorial and Publication Boards decide whether the article will be published and in which issue.
Due to journal policy, each issue is limited to a pre-determined number of articles. Therefore, accepted manuscripts are scheduled for publication based on the submission date and balance of subject matter.
To maintain academic reliability, quality, and accessibility, only one manuscript per author is considered for publication in a single issue.
