Review Process

Review Process

Blind peer review is a method applied to ensure that scientific publications are published at the highest quality. This method forms the basis for the objective evaluation of scientific works and is preferred by many scientific journals. The reviews of peer reviewers play a decisive role in the publication quality of the Journal of Alevism-Bektashism Studies. All submissions are evaluated through a blind review process according to the stages outlined below.

Type of Blind Review

Journal of Alevism-Bektashism Studies employs a double-blind review method throughout the evaluation process. In the double-blind method, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed.

Initial Evaluation

Submissions are initially evaluated by the Editors. At this stage, submissions that do not comply with the journal's aims and scope, are weak in terms of language and expression, contain critical scientific errors, lack originality, or do not meet publication policies are rejected. Authors of rejected works will be informed within a maximum of two weeks from the submission date. Suitable submissions will be sent to a field editor for preliminary evaluation.

Preliminary Evaluation

During the preliminary evaluation, field editors thoroughly examine the submission's introduction, methods, findings, results, evaluation, and discussion sections for conformity with the journal's publication policies, scope, and originality. Submissions not deemed suitable will be returned with the field editor's evaluation report within a maximum of four weeks. Suitable submissions proceed to the peer review process.

Peer Review Process

Submissions are reviewed based on their content and the expertise of the reviewers. The field editor recommends at least two reviewers from the journal's pool based on their areas of expertise, or may suggest new reviewers appropriate to the submission's field. The reviewer recommendations are evaluated by the editors and submissions are sent to the reviewers. Reviewers must guarantee that they will not share any processes or documents regarding the submissions they evaluate.

Reviewer Reports

Reviewer evaluations generally assess submissions in terms of originality, appropriateness of methods, adherence to ethical standards, consistent presentation of findings and results, and mastery of the literature. Evaluations are based on the following criteria:

• Introduction and Literature: Opinions on the presentation of the problem, its objectives, the importance of the topic, the scope and timeliness of the related literature, and the work's originality.
• Method: Opinions on the appropriateness of the method, selection and characteristics of the research group, validity and reliability, and the data collection and analysis process.
• Findings: Opinions on the presentation of findings, accuracy of analysis methods, consistency between objectives and findings, provision of necessary tables and figures, and conceptual evaluations of the tests used.
• Evaluation and Discussion: Opinions on the discussion of findings, relevance to research questions and hypotheses, generalizability, and applicability.
• Conclusions and Recommendations: Opinions on contributions to the literature and suggestions for future works and applications in the field.
• Style and Expression: Opinions on whether the title adequately covers the content, appropriate language use, and whether citations and references comply with journal guidelines.
• General Evaluation: Opinions on the overall originality of the work and its contribution to the literature and applications in the field.

Reviewers are not expected to make corrections based on the typographical features of the submission during the evaluation process.

Reviewer Evaluation Timeline

The time allocated to reviewers for the evaluation process is six weeks. Suggestions for corrections from reviewers or editors must be completed by the authors within one month according to the "correction guidelines." Reviewers may review corrections for appropriateness and may request corrections multiple times if necessary.

Evaluation Result

The opinions received from reviewers are examined by the field editor within a maximum of two weeks. Following this review, the field editor communicates the final decision regarding the submission to the editors.

Editorial Board Decision

Based on the field editor and reviewers' opinions, the editors prepare the editorial board's views regarding the submission. These views are conveyed to the author(s) together with the field editor and reviewer recommendations within a maximum of one week. Submissions with negative opinions will be returned without a plagiarism check. For submissions with positive opinions, the final decision will be made based on the results of the plagiarism check reports.

How Long Does the Review Process Take?

The publication evaluation process for submissions is anticipated to be completed within approximately six months. However, the time between when reviewers or editors request corrections and when authors complete those corrections is not included in this six-month period.

Online Submission Guide

Authors submitting works for evaluation can do so by registering on the journal management system at www.abked.de. Authors must follow the guidelines in the "Online Submission Guide" to register and submit their work.

Correction Guidelines and Uploading Guide

For works in the evaluation process, editors, field editors, and/or reviewers may request one or more corrections and improvements. Authors are obliged to complete the requested corrections fully, clearly, and on time, with the awareness that the requested corrections are objective and enhance the originality of the work.

Withdrawal of Work / Article

Journal of Alevism-Bektashism Studies values holistic and comprehensive publishing for researchers and librarians, and recognizes that publishing reliable original research articles is essential to achieving this. The responsibilities and obligations of authors and the editorial board during the withdrawal of a work or article are outlined below.

Authors

If authors notice an error or mistake related to their published, early view, or submitted work, they are obliged to cooperate with the journal editor in the withdrawal process.

Authors wishing to withdraw their work in the evaluation phase must fill out the "Withdrawal Form" and submit it with wet signatures of each author in scanned form to the editorial board through their membership at www.abked.de or via email. The editorial board will review the withdrawal notification and respond within a maximum of 15 days. Authors cannot submit their work to another journal until the withdrawal request is approved by the editorial board for works whose copyright has been transferred to the Journal of Alevism-Bektashism Studies during the submission phase.

Editors

The Editorial Board of Journal of Alevism-Bektashism Studies must initiate an investigation if copyright infringement or plagiarism suspicions arise regarding a published, early view, or submitted work.

If the Editorial Board finds copyright infringement or plagiarism in a work under evaluation, it will withdraw the work from evaluation and return it to the authors, detailing the identified issues with appropriate citations.

If copyright infringement or plagiarism is detected in a published or early view work, the editorial board will carry out the following withdrawal and notification procedures within a maximum of one week:

• The title in electronic display will be prefixed with "Withdrawn:"
• Instead of the abstract and full text in the electronic display, the reasons for withdrawal will be published along with detailed evidence sources and, if available, notifications from the institutions to which the authors are affiliated.
• A withdrawal notice will be announced on the homepage of the journal's website.
• "Withdrawn: Title of the Work" will be added to the contents list of the next published issue in both electronic and printed copies, with the reasons for withdrawal shared with the public and researchers, starting from the first page.
• Withdrawal notifications will be sent to the institutions to which the authors are affiliated.
• The withdrawal notifications will be submitted to all institutions and indexing systems where the journal is indexed.

Additionally, the editorial board may recommend that authors of works with ethical violations ensure the validity and reliability of their previously published works or withdraw them.

Right to Appeal

Authors have the right to appeal the opinions of the editorial board and scientific committee communicated to them as a result of the evaluation. Authors should submit their grounds for appeal in scientific language, citing references, via their membership at www.abked.de or by email. The editorial board will review the appeals within a maximum of one month and provide a positive or negative response to the authors (opinions may be requested from the field editor and reviewers regarding the appeal). If the authors' appeals are found to be valid, the editorial board will initiate a new peer review process appointing reviewers suitable for the subject area of the work.

Peer-Review Process for Editors and Reviewers

Technical Check

Technical check is carried out by the editorial office and includes:

• Similarity check via Turnitin
• Verification that all necessary information has been provided
• Completion of files, forms, and statements

Preliminary Review by the Editor-in-Chief

The editor-in-chief evaluates adherence to:

• Journal's Focus and Scope
• Publication Quality
• Language Quality
• Ethical Standards
• Conflict of Interest

The editor-in-chief either rejects the manuscript or forwards it to academic editors.

Evaluation by Academic Editors

Academic editors assess:

• Objective errors
• Language errors (grammar, spelling, and the related scientific literature)
• Research quality
• Compliance with ethical considerations and standards

Academic editors either reject the manuscript or forward it to invited peer reviewers.

Review by Peer Reviewers

The peer review process includes:

• Declaration of competing interests (If competing interests exist, the editorial office will evaluate the relationship and, if deemed permissible, assign peer review. The editorial office will follow COPE's guideline on competing interests.)
• Thorough review of the manuscript
• Quality assessments: research question, hypothesis, theoretical background and relevance to the scientific literature, methodology, scientific standards, language and presentation
• Providing feedback
• Making one of four decisions: recommending publication, minor revision, major revision, or rejection
• Drafting a review report

Final Decision for Publication

Once the author(s) complete revisions and/or finalize the manuscript, academic editors forward the decision to the editor-in-chief. There may be more than one round of peer review for this decision.

The editor-in-chief evaluates the academic editors' decision, makes a final decision, and shares it with the authors. A manuscript can be either accepted for publication or rejected.

If the manuscript is accepted, the production team will prepare it for publication.