Reviewer Guideline

Peer Review Process Principles

Evaluation Principles

  1. Submission Acceptance: Manuscripts that are unpublished, not under review elsewhere, and approved by all authors are accepted for evaluation.

  2. Plagiarism Check: To prevent ethical violations, submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using tools such as iThenticate, Turnitin, or intihal.net. The similarity report is reviewed by the editor to check for "citation versus plagiarism" discrepancies. Manuscripts containing unethical practices not aligned with academic writing standards are returned to the authors.

  3. Double-Blind Peer Review: Sultan Journal implements a double-blind peer review process. After initial assessment for journal suitability by the Editors, manuscripts are brought to the Editorial Board for discussion. Manuscripts reviewed by the Editorial Board may be rejected without further review or sent to at least two experts, and if deemed necessary, a third reviewer.

  4. Non-Discriminatory Evaluation: Manuscripts are evaluated irrespective of the authors' ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious belief, or political views. A fair double-blind peer review process is ensured.

  5. Conflict of Interest: The editor does not allow conflicts of interest among authors, editors, reviewers, or Editorial Board members.

  6. Final Decision: The Editorial Board is responsible for the final decision on manuscript acceptance or rejection.

  7. Exclusion from Decision Making: Editorial Board members are excluded from decisions regarding manuscripts authored by themselves, their family members, or their students. Such submissions are subject to the journal's standard procedures.

  8. Confidentiality and Reporting: Reviewers must keep all information related to the submitted manuscripts confidential until publication and report any copyright infringement or plagiarism to the editor.

  9. Reviewer Disqualification: If a reviewer feels unqualified on the manuscript topic or is unable to provide timely feedback, they should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

  10. Reviewer Anonymity: The identity of reviewers must be kept confidential by the Editorial Board. Reviewers are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the manuscript content.

Evaluation Process

  1. Initial Review: Manuscripts received by the journal undergo a preliminary review for format and ethical compliance within 2 weeks. Manuscripts that pass this review are placed on the Editorial Board's agenda. The Board decides whether the manuscripts proceed to the peer review process. Reviewers are given 4 weeks to evaluate the manuscripts, with an extension of 2 weeks possible if needed. Authors are given 2 weeks to make corrections based on reviewer feedback, with the possibility of extending this period if necessary. After the review process, the manuscripts are considered for publication by the Editorial Board. They are then forwarded to the final reading editor and the English language editor. Once finalized, manuscripts are published electronically. The average review process takes 20 weeks, and the time from acceptance to publication in an issue is approximately 24 weeks.

  2. Peer Review Type: Double-Blind

  3. Review Timing: Pre-Publication

  4. Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors. There is no direct communication between reviewers and authors.

  5. Review Duration: The publication review process typically takes 20 weeks.

  6. Publication Time: The assignment of accepted manuscripts to an issue and their publication takes approximately 24 weeks.

  7. Plagiarism Check: All manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using iThenticate, Turnitin, or intihal.net.

  8. Number of Reviewers: Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers.

  9. Decision: Acceptance requires positive reviews from at least two reviewers. The final decision on acceptance or rejection is made by the Editorial Board.

  10. Ethical Concerns: Reviewers who suspect ethical violations in the manuscripts report the issue to the editor. The editor follows COPE guidelines for necessary actions and presents the outcome to the Editorial Board. The final decision rests with the Editorial Board.

Editorial Process for Editorial Board Members’ Submissions

Submissions authored by Editorial Board members are reviewed by at least two external reviewers. During this review period, the member’s role in the journal’s system is suspended to ensure the integrity of the double-blind review process.

Authors' Responsibilities

  1. Adherence to Standards: Authors must adhere to research and publication ethics.

  2. Exclusive Submission: Authors should not attempt to publish the same work in multiple journals.

  3. Proper Citation: Authors must cite all works referenced in their manuscript accurately.

Editors' Responsibilities

  1. Impartial Evaluation: The editor evaluates manuscripts without bias towards the authors’ ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious belief, or political views.

  2. Fair Review Process: The editor ensures a fair double-blind peer review process, maintaining confidentiality of all manuscript-related information.

  3. Quality Control: The editor and Editorial Board are responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. They may issue correction notices or retract papers if necessary.

  4. Conflict of Interest: The editor does not permit conflicts of interest among authors, Editorial Board members, or reviewers and has full authority over the review process and publication decisions.

Reviewers' Responsibilities

  1. No Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest with the authors or research funders.

  2. Objective Evaluation: Reviews must be objective.

  3. Respectful Language: Reviewers should use language and style that is respectful and non-offensive to authors.

  4. Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep all manuscript-related information confidential until publication.

  5. Report Violations: Reviewers must report any copyright or ethical violations they identify in the manuscript to the editor.

  6. Withdrawal from Review: Reviewers should withdraw from reviewing if they feel unqualified or unable to meet deadlines.

  7. Scientific Content: Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

    • Is the topic, scope, and methodology scientific?
    • Does the manuscript provide original information or documentation contributing to the field?
    • Does the manuscript critically assess primary or current sources and present the author’s interpretations effectively?
    • Does the manuscript meet its stated objectives?
    • Are the titles, abstract, conclusion, and visual elements appropriate and relevant to the content?

Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening

Manuscripts received by the journal are subjected to a formal and ethical preliminary review within 2 weeks. This review checks compliance with the journal's writing guidelines. Manuscripts meeting these guidelines are then screened for plagiarism using iThenticate, Turnitin, or intihal.net. The similarity report is examined by the editor to ensure proper citation practices. Manuscripts with unethical content are returned to the authors.

Peer Review Process

Reviewers are given 4 weeks to evaluate manuscripts, with an additional 2 weeks possible if needed. Authors are given 2 weeks to make corrections based on reviewer feedback, with possible extensions if necessary.

Revision Stage

If reviewers request revisions, the reports are sent to the author, who is asked to make the necessary corrections within 2 weeks, with the possibility of an extension. The author should use the "Track Changes" feature in Word or indicate changes in red or yellow. If there are disagreements with reviewer comments, the author may provide a "Note to Reviewer" in a separate Word file. The revised manuscript and any "Note to Reviewer" are submitted through the journal’s submission system. The editor ensures that the revised manuscript reaches the reviewers appropriately.

Editorial Board's Final Decision

At the end of the review process, manuscripts are considered for publication based on the Editorial Board's decision. Acceptance requires at least two positive reviews. Review reports and the final manuscript are presented to the Editorial Board for evaluation about a week before each meeting. Acceptance or rejection of manuscripts is decided by majority vote.

Final Reading and English Language Review

Manuscripts are reviewed for Turkish language and spelling by a final reading editor and for English language and spelling by a language editor.

Publication Process

Accepted manuscripts are scheduled for publication by the editor. Typesetting, layout, and enriched metadata are completed before electronic publication.

Submission to National and International Indexes

The "enriched metadata" of each published issue is submitted to national and international academic databases within four weeks of the publication date.