Reviewer Guideline

PEER REVIEW PROCESS PRINCIPLES

Evaluation Principles

  1. Unpublished Work and Double-Blind Review Requirement: Articles submitted for evaluation must be unpublished, not under review in any other journal, and must be approved by each author.
  2. Ethical Oversight and Plagiarism Detection: Submitted articles will be screened for plagiarism using detection programs (iThenticate, Turnitin, or intihal.net) to prevent ethical violations. The similarity report will be reviewed by the editor to ensure compliance with citation and referencing standards. If unethical issues not adhering to academic writing standards are detected, the manuscript will be returned to the author.
  3. Peer Review Process and Double-Blind Evaluation: Dorlion Journal employs a double-blind peer review process. After preliminary evaluation by the editors for journal suitability, articles will be placed on the agenda of the Editorial Board for discussion. The Board may decide to review the articles or reject them without review based on their discretion. If reviewed, articles will be sent to at least two experts, and if necessary, a third reviewer may be appointed.
  4. Impartial Evaluation: Articles will be assessed independently of the authors’ ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, and political views. All submitted articles will undergo a fair double-blind peer review process.
  5. Conflict of Interest and Neutrality: No conflicts of interest are permitted among editors, authors, reviewers, and editorial board members. All parties must ensure impartiality and fair evaluation throughout the process.
  6. Final Decision: The Editorial Board has the authority to make the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles.
  7. Related Articles and Conflicts of Interest: Editorial Board members must recuse themselves from decisions on articles authored by themselves, family members, or students. Such submissions are subject to the journal's standard review procedures.
  8. Confidentiality and Copyright: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all information related to the manuscript until publication. Additionally, if any copyright infringement or plagiarism is identified by the author, it must be reported to the editor immediately.
  9. Competence and Time Management: Reviewers who feel they lack expertise on the subject or are unable to meet the deadline should inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.
  10. Reviewer Identity Confidentiality: Editorial Board members must ensure the confidentiality of reviewers' identities. Reviewers are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of manuscript content and must not disclose it to unauthorized individuals.

 

REVIEW PROCESS

  1. Initial Review: Manuscripts submitted to the journal will undergo a preliminary review for formatting and ethical compliance within two weeks. Following this preliminary review, manuscripts that pass will be placed on the agenda of the Editorial Board for further evaluation. During the meeting, the Board will decide whether the manuscripts will proceed to the peer review process.
  2. Peer Review Duration: Articles sent for peer review are allotted a period of four weeks for evaluation. If necessary, this period can be extended by an additional two weeks. For manuscripts requiring revisions based on reviewer feedback, authors are given two weeks to make the required changes. This timeframe can also be extended if needed.
  3. Post-Peer Review: Upon completion of the peer review process, the Editorial Board will make the final decision on publication. Accepted manuscripts will be forwarded for final proofreading by the language editor and the English language editor. Manuscripts prepared for publication will be published electronically. On average, the review process takes about 20 weeks, and the publication of an accepted manuscript typically takes about 24 weeks.
  4. Type of Review: Dorlion Journal employs a double-blind review method. In this process, both reviewers and authors are unaware of each other's identities, with only editors facilitating interactions between reviewers and authors.
  5. Review Timeframe: The review process generally lasts about 20 weeks. The publication of an accepted manuscript may take an additional 24 weeks.
  6. Plagiarism Check: All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using platforms such as iThenticate, Turnitin, or intihal.net to prevent academic misconduct.
  7. Number of Reviewers: Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers.
  8. Decision: Acceptance of a manuscript requires positive reviews from at least two reviewers. The final decision on whether to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editorial Board.
  9. Suspected Ethical Violations: If reviewers suspect any violations of publication ethics in the manuscript, they should report this to the editor. The editor will take necessary actions in accordance with COPE guidelines and present the findings to the Editorial Board. The final decision on the manuscript rests with the Editorial Board.
  10. Editorial Board Members’ Submissions: Manuscripts authored by Editorial Board members are reviewed by at least two external reviewers. During this review process, the Board member's role in the journal system is suspended to maintain double-blind confidentiality.

 

AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES

  1. Research and Publication Ethics: Authors must fully adhere to research and publication ethics. This includes maintaining honesty, transparency, and reliability throughout the scientific research process.
  2. Duplicate Publication: Authors should not attempt to publish the same work in multiple journals. It is an ethical obligation to check whether a manuscript is under review in another journal.
  3. Citation: Authors must accurately cite all sources used in the preparation of the manuscript. This practice aims to avoid plagiarism and ensure academic transparency.

EDITOR RESPONSIBILITIES

  1. Fair Evaluation: Editors must evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors’ ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, or political opinions. This ensures that the review process is fair and objective.
  2. Confidentiality and Double-Blind Review: Editors must ensure that manuscripts are reviewed fairly under a double-blind system and maintain the confidentiality of all information related to the manuscripts.
  3. Publication Quality and Content: The responsibility for the quality and content of publications lies with the editor and the Editorial Board. Editors are responsible for issuing correction notices or retracting articles if necessary.
  4. Conflict of Interest and Peer Review Process: Editors must prevent any conflicts of interest between themselves, the authors, the Editorial Board, and reviewers. They have full authority over the peer review process, and the final decision regarding publication rests with the Editorial Board.

REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES

  1. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must not have any conflicts of interest with the authors or research funding sources. Declaring conflicts of interest ensures adherence to ethical standards in the review process.
  2. Objectivity and Language Use: Reviewers must provide objective assessments and use language and style that do not disparage the authors.
  3. Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all information related to the manuscript until it is published.
  4. Copyright and Publication Ethics Violations: Reviewers must promptly report any suspected copyright infringements or violations of publication ethics to the editor.
  5. Competence and Time Management: Reviewers should withdraw from the review process if they feel inadequately qualified to assess the manuscript or cannot meet the review deadline.
  6. Scientific Content Evaluation: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:
    • Is the topic, scope, and methodology of the work scientific?
    • Does the manuscript provide original information or evidence that contributes to the field?
    • Does the manuscript critically evaluate primary and/or current sources and present the author's interpretations? Does it achieve the intended purpose of the work?
    • Are the headings, abstract, conclusion sections, and any figures, tables, images, maps, etc., appropriate for the content of the manuscript?

 

PRE-REVIEW AND PLAGIARISM CHECK

  1. Format and Ethical Pre-Review: Manuscripts received by the journal undergo a format and ethical pre-review within two weeks. This stage checks whether the manuscript complies with the journal's submission guidelines.
  2. Plagiarism Check: Manuscripts prepared according to the journal’s guidelines are scanned using plagiarism detection programs (iThenticate, Turnitin, or İntihal.net) to prevent ethical violations. The similarity report is examined in detail by the editor to check for differences in citations and quotations. If any unethical issues that do not conform to academic writing standards are detected, the manuscript is returned to the author(s).

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Manuscripts sent for peer review are given to reviewers for a four-week review period. If necessary, this period may be extended by an additional two weeks. For manuscripts requiring revisions based on reviewer reports, the author is given two weeks to make corrections; this period may be extended depending on the complexity of the manuscript.

REVISION STAGE

If reviewers request revisions to the manuscript, their reports are sent to the author, who is then required to make the necessary changes within two weeks. This period can be extended if needed. Revisions should be tracked using the "Track Changes" feature in Microsoft Word or highlighted in red or yellow in the manuscript. The author may provide explanations for any disagreements with the reviewers in a separate Word document titled "Author's Response to Reviewers." The revised manuscript and, if applicable, the "Author's Response to Reviewers" should be submitted via the Journal Tracking System. The editor ensures that the revisions are properly communicated to the reviewers.

FINAL DECISION BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Once the peer review process is complete, the manuscripts are evaluated by the Editorial Board for a final decision. A manuscript requires positive reviews from at least two reviewers for acceptance. Approximately one week before the Editorial Board meetings, the reviewers' reports and final versions of the manuscripts are made available to the board members for review. The decision on whether to accept the manuscripts for publication is made by a majority vote.

FINAL PROOFREADING AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDITING

Accepted manuscripts are proofread for Turkish language and spelling by a final proofreader. English language and spelling are reviewed by a language editor.

PUBLICATION PROCESS

Manuscripts ready for publication are scheduled for an issue by the editor. Typesetting and layout processes are completed, and the articles are published electronically with rich metadata.

DATA SUBMISSION TO NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL INDEXES

The "rich metadata" of each published issue is submitted to national and international academic data platforms within four weeks of the publication date. This process is carried out meticulously to enhance the journal's visibility and accessibility.