Peer-Review Policy

Initial Manuscript Evaluation
For consideration, all manuscripts should be submitted by online system of The Journal at The whole editorial process of The Journal is done via online submission system, and can be documented in case of a conflict or objection.
The suitability of papers for publication in The Journal is decided by the editorial policy of the editorial board.
Editor-in-Chief is fully authorized for reviewing process, which is processed in the order of submission to The Journal.
Editor-in-Chief assigns either one of the Co-Editors or himself in order to perform initial assessment. Then, the assignee conducts initial pre-refereeing checks to ensure the article is legible, complete, correctly formatted, original, within the scope of The Journal, in the style of a scientific article and written in clear language.

Check for Plagiarism
The Journal is a member of Crosscheck, and all manuscripts are screened by Crosscheck in terms of originality. If serious issues are identified concerning the manuscript, the assignee will notify the corresponding author as part of our standard procedure. No action is required from you unless specifically requested for very serious concerns.
Any article that has problems with any of the above criteria may be rejected at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage typically are not in line with the focus and scopes of the journal. Essays that pass through this stage are then entered into the peer review process.
This journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure. Authors are therefore requested to submit:
1. A blinded manuscript file without any author names and affiliations in the text. Self-identifying citations and references in the article text should be avoided.
2. A separate full manuscript file, containing title, all author names, affiliations, contact information of the corresponding author and all other compoments of the manuscript. Any acknowledgements, disclosures, or funding information should also be included on this page.
Editorial Assistants at The Journal facilitate the peer review process by assisting with blinding manuscripts and corresponding with potential peer reviewers.
The Journal adheres to a strict policy of double-blind, peer-review to ensure best practices in scholarly research and publication. In Double-blind model, the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript. To ensure anonymity in the double-blind refereeing process, the author's name should not appear anywhere on the manuscript. If using Microsoft Word the manuscript 'Summary', under the menu 'File/Properties/Summary', should also be erased. Once blinded, the assignee selects at least two members of the advisory board, and manuscripts are shared with these experts within the field for double-blind peer review, in which both the Reviewer and the Author remain anonymous throughout the process. A reviewer may not belong to the same institution as authors.
After assigned, the reviewers are invited to participate the review process via a notification email. The email invitation to reviewers will contain all necessary information about the manuscript. The reviewers are asked to log into the journal web site to indicate whether they will undertake the review or not, as well as to access the submission and to record their review and recommendation.
Automated email reminders are sent to the reviewer when the reviewer do not respond to a review request within 7 days. The typical period of time allowed for reviews is 4 weeks but note that it can be modified during the editorial process.

Peer Review Reports
Reviewers make one of the following recommendations to the Editors: accept submission, revisions required, resubmit for review, resubmit elsewhere, decline submission. Additionally, reviewers are asked to provide significant commentary for authors and are also provided space to make comments intended solely for the editors. Reviewers are not asked or expected to make any copyediting comments.
If both reviewers agree on acceptance or rejection, the decision stands.
Occasionally, we receive contradicting Reviewers' reports and need to ask for a third reviewer, which does delay the process. When their opinions are poles apart, then the Associate Editor takes a further process to decide acceptance or rejection of that paper. For the further process, Associate Editors request an emergency review by another advisory board member. Associate Editors may take a further process for the manuscript of which reviewing process is overdue.
If a paper is not suitable for publication it will be returned to the author with a statement of reasons for rejection. The author may appeal if he or she believes an erroneous or unfair judgment has been made. A letter to the Editor-in-Chief presenting reasons why the decision should be reconsidered will be subjected to due consideration.
After review, the author is notified by email for revision in accord with suggestions made by the reviewers and the Editor.
At the completion of each round of the peer review process, the submitter receives a formal letter from the Editor that includes notes from the Peer Reviewers.
When authors make revisions to their article in response to the referees' comments they are asked to submit a list of changes and any replies for transmission to the referees. The author must upload the revised manuscript to the online system within 4 weeks; otherwise the author will be notified that the paper will be considered withdrawn.
The revised version is usually returned to at least one of the original referees who is then asked whether the revisions are satisfactory. If the referees remain dissatisfied, the paper can be referred to the advisory board of the journal for further consideration.
The assignee then, will check if the manuscript is revised as suggested by editorial members and proceed to the next step. If the assignee finds the revisions satisfying, then he or she will record the decision to accomplish the review process and reach final decision.

Decision Making Process
Based upon two or more reviewers' reports, the Co-Editors are responsible for making the decision regarding acceptance or rejection each essay and for communicating this decision to the submitter. At the completion of the peer review process, each submitter receives a formal letter from the Editors that includes notes from the Peer Reviewers.
The final decision by Editor-in-Chief is usually completed within 2 months from the time of the paper submission.
Authors are notified by e-mail when a manuscript has or has not been accepted for publication. Proofs of accepted manuscripts are sent to the author for correction within 4 weeks after acceptance. They should be proofread carefully according to the instructions attached and returned within the considered period. Authors will be charged for major corrections to their proofs.
For 2016, average days required to complete the review process is 62 days, whereas average days that pass till publication is 173 days.