Acta of Humanities and Social Sciences applies a double-blind peer review system in order to ensure the academic quality and reliability of the scientific studies it publishes. In this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the evaluation process. The double-blind review method aims to ensure that scientific studies are evaluated in an objective, impartial, and ethically appropriate manner.
All manuscripts submitted to our journal are evaluated in accordance with the stages outlined below. Authors are required to completely remove all identifying information from the manuscript when uploading it to the system.
1. Editorial Evaluation (Initial Screening)
Manuscripts submitted to our journal are first reviewed by the editor. At this stage, submissions are evaluated according to the following criteria:
compliance with the aims and scope of the journal,
adherence to scientific writing standards,
adequacy of language and expression,
compliance with academic ethical principles,
originality and scientific contribution.
Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria, contain serious scientific or structural deficiencies, or are not compatible with the journal’s publication policies are rejected without initiating the peer-review process. Authors of rejected manuscripts are informed within a reasonable period of time. Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to the preliminary evaluation stage.
2. Preliminary Evaluation Process
During the preliminary evaluation stage, the editor examines the manuscript in detail with regard to the following sections:
introduction and literature review,
methodology,
findings,
discussion and conclusion.
In addition, the manuscript is checked for compliance with the author guidelines and formatting rules. When necessary, authors may be asked to make formal or substantive revisions. Authors are expected to upload the requested revisions to the system within the specified period. Manuscripts that are not revised within the given time are removed from the evaluation process. Manuscripts found to be suitable proceed to the reviewer assignment stage.
3. Reviewer Assignment Process
Manuscripts that pass the preliminary evaluation are sent to at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected by the editor and the editorial board, taking into account the subject matter and scope of the manuscript. When necessary, new reviewers outside the journal’s reviewer pool may be appointed.
Reviewers agree to evaluate the manuscripts submitted to them in accordance with the principle of confidentiality and to refrain from sharing any documents or information related to the review process with third parties.
4. Peer Review Process
The period granted to reviewers for evaluation is six (6) weeks. Based on the reviewers’ reports, authors may be requested to make revisions. Authors are required to complete and upload the revisions prepared in line with the reviewers’ comments within the specified period.
Reviewers may decide on the publishability of the manuscript after examining the revised version or may request additional revisions if deemed necessary.
5. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewer evaluations are generally conducted based on the following criteria:
Introduction and literature review: Presentation of the research problem, objectives, scope and currency of the relevant literature, and originality of the study
Methodology: Appropriateness of the research method used, data collection and analysis process, validity and reliability
Findings: Clear and consistent presentation of findings, accuracy of analyses, and consistency with the research objectives
Discussion: The extent to which findings are related to the literature and address the research questions
Conclusion and recommendations: Contribution to the literature and recommendations for future research
Language, style, and writing: Use of academic language and compliance with writing rules
Overall evaluation: Scientific contribution of the study and its value to the relevant field
Reviewers are not expected to make detailed corrections related to the typographical features of the manuscript.
6. Final Decision
Based on the reviewers’ reports, decisions of acceptance, revision, or rejection are evaluated by the editor and the editorial board and finalized accordingly. The editorial board reserves the right to conduct additional evaluations by taking reviewer reports into consideration when deemed necessary.