Peer Review Process

International • Double-Blind Peer-Reviewed • Open Access • Bilingual (EN/TR)

Peer Review Process

YAKALDER Forum – Journal of Society, Policy and Wellbeing  implements a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, and integrity of its publications. All editorial procedures are conducted through the journal's online manuscript management system.

The review process consists of the following stages:

1. Initial Editorial Evaluation

All submissions are first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who may assign the manuscript to a relevant Section Editor. At this stage, the editor assesses the manuscript according to the following criteria:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope,
  • Compliance with author guidelines (format, length, language),
  • Scientific novelty and contribution,
  • Originality.

The journal is a member of CrossCheck and uses iThenticate software to screen all submissions. Manuscripts that fall outside the scope, lack originality, contain serious methodological flaws, or show evidence of plagiarism are desk-rejected before external review.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two (2) independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. The selection of appropriate reviewers and management of the process are the responsibility of the Section Editor / Editor-in-Chief.

3. Double-Blind Review

The journal employs a double-blind review Model:

  • The authors' identities are concealed from reviewers.
  • The reviewers' identities are concealed from authors.

Reviewers are invited via e-mail and asked to evaluate the manuscript in terms of originality, methodology, contribution to the field, and clarity. They are expected to provide constructive comments for authors and confidential recommendations for the editor. The standard review period is 30 days (4 weeks).

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewer reports, the Section Editor submits a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Possible decision outcomes include:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Revisions Required (Minor/Major): The manuscript requires revisions before acceptance.
  • Resubmit for Review: The manuscript needs substantial changes and a new review round.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication.

The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author by the Editor-in-Chief, along with anonymised reviewer comments.

5. Author Revisions

If a "Revisions Required" decision is issued, authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in line with reviewer and editor comments. They must also submit a detailed response letter addressing all points raised.

Revision timelines are as follows:

  • Minor Revisions: 21 days (3 weeks).
  • Major Revisions: 60 days (8 weeks). (Extensions may be granted upon reasonable request.)

Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation, at the editor's discretion.

6. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief holds the ultimate authority over all manuscripts. The final decision is based on reviewer feedback and the Section Editor's recommendation, and it is considered final.

7. Appeals

Authors who believe their manuscript was unfairly evaluated may appeal the decision by contacting the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals must include a detailed justification for reconsideration.

8. Layout and Proofing

Upon acceptance, the manuscript undergoes professional typesetting. A galley proof is sent to the corresponding author for final review. At this stage, only minor typographical or formatting corrections are permitted; no significant changes to content, data, or authorship are allowed.