Karadeniz International Scientific Journal
Karadeniz International Scientific Journal evaluates all submitted academic manuscripts through a double-blind peer review process. In this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed.
Authors are required to remove all identifying information, including names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and any elements that may reveal their identity, from the manuscript files to ensure the integrity of the evaluation process.
All evaluation procedures are conducted in accordance with international ethical standards and the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal follows COPE Core Practices, Retraction Guidelines, and relevant ethical flowcharts.
Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit and are independent of external influence.
The Advisory Board contributes to the scientific development of the journal, periodically reviews publication policies, and supports its international academic visibility.
For detailed information on publication ethics, plagiarism, open access, copyright, licensing, conflict of interest, and publication fees, please refer to the relevant policy pages.
Authors submit their manuscripts through the online journal management system operated via the DergiPark infrastructure. During submission, manuscript files, ethical declarations, copyright forms, and all required documents must be uploaded to the system.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subject to an initial evaluation conducted by the Editor-in-Chief. When deemed necessary, input may also be obtained from Associate Editors.
At this stage, manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria:
All submissions are automatically screened using similarity detection software, and the similarity report is incorporated into the evaluation process.
Manuscripts that do not meet the required criteria may be rejected without being sent for peer review (desk rejection).
The initial evaluation process is typically completed within two weeks.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial evaluation are assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to an Associate Editor with relevant subject expertise.
The Associate Editor is responsible for managing the scientific evaluation process of the manuscript.
The Associate Editor assigns at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field, preferably from different institutions.
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and must have no conflict of interest.
Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations in accordance with the principles of scientific objectivity, impartiality, and confidentiality.
If invited reviewers fail to respond within a reasonable time or decline the invitation, new reviewers are assigned.
In cases where reviewer reports are conflicting, insufficient, or require further evaluation, the Associate Editor may assign an additional reviewer or request supplementary reports.
Manuscripts are evaluated under a double-blind peer review system.
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
At the end of the evaluation, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:
Reviewer reports serve as advisory input for editorial decision-making.
The peer review process is typically completed within 4–8 weeks, depending on the field and the responsiveness of reviewers.
The Associate Editor evaluates reviewer reports in terms of content, scientific adequacy, consistency, and justification.
Superficial or insufficient reports may not be considered sufficient for decision-making. Additional reports may be requested, or new reviewers may be assigned when necessary.
Manuscripts requiring revisions based on reviewer and editorial feedback are returned to the authors.
Authors are required to complete revisions within the specified timeframe and submit a detailed response to reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed.
The revision period may vary depending on the scope of the manuscript.
Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the Associate Editor and, when necessary, may be sent back to the original reviewers or new reviewers for further assessment.
The Associate Editor evaluates the revised manuscript, reviewer reports, and author responses and makes a recommendation regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection.
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript is made exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Chief may, when necessary, make a decision that differs from reviewer or Associate Editor recommendations based on scientific and editorial considerations.
In cases where ethical concerns are identified, the process is reviewed by the Ethics Editor.
Ethical investigations may be initiated based on reviewer reports, editorial assessments, or third-party notifications.
When necessary, additional information and documentation may be requested from the relevant parties.
📌 For more information, see: Publication Ethics Policy.
Accepted manuscripts are reviewed by a Language Editor for linguistic accuracy, clarity, and academic expression prior to publication.
Authors may be requested to make necessary revisions.
After language editing, manuscripts are prepared for publication by the Technical Editor.
This stage includes typesetting, layout design, DOI assignment, metadata preparation, and PDF generation.
The final version of the manuscript is sent to the authors for approval.
After author approval is obtained, the manuscript is scheduled for publication.
The manuscript is published as open access in the relevant issue after all processes are completed.
The journal’s publication fee policy is transparently presented on the journal’s website.
Editorial and peer review processes are conducted independently of any financial considerations.
📌 For more information, see: Article Processing Charge (APC) Policy.
Authors may appeal rejection decisions within 30 days of notification by providing a justified explanation.
Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief. If deemed necessary, the manuscript may be reassessed by a different Associate Editor or new reviewers.
Decisions made after the appeal process are final.
Editors and reviewers are required to act in accordance with principles of impartiality.
Individuals with institutional, academic, financial, or personal conflicts of interest with the authors must not participate in the evaluation process.
Such cases require reassignment to another editor or reviewer.
📌 For more information, see: Conflict of Interest Policy.
In cases of errors, ethical violations, or scientific concerns identified after publication, correction, retraction, or expression of concern may be issued.
These processes are conducted in accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines and related ethical standards.
📌 For more information, see: Publication Ethics Policy.