The Process of Evaluation

Blind refereeing is a method applied for publishing scientific publications with the highest quality. This method forms the basis of the objective evaluation process of scientific studies and is preferred by many scientific journals. All studies submitted to the European Archieves of Social Sciences are evaluated by blinding according to the following stages.

Blind Arbitration Type:

The European Archieves of Social Sciences uses the double blind method in the evaluation process of all studies. In the double blind method, the identities of the authors and referees of the studies are hidden. 

Initial Evaluation Process:

Studies submitted to the European Archieves of Social Sciences are first evaluated by the editors. At this stage, studies that do not comply with the purpose and scope of the journal, are weak in terms of language and expression rules in Turkish and English, contain scientific critical errors, have no original value and do not meet the publication policies are rejected. Authors of rejected studies are informed within one month at the latest from the date of submission. Studies that are deemed appropriate are sent to a field editor for the field of interest for pre-evaluation. 

Pre-Evaluation Process:

In the pre-evaluation process, field editors examine the introduction and literature, method, findings, conclusion, evaluation and discussion sections of the studies in detail in terms of journal publishing policies and scope and originality. Studies deemed unsuitable as a result of this review are returned within four weeks at the latest with the field editor’s evaluation report. Studies found appropriate are taken into the refereeing process.

Refereeing Process:

Studies are refereed according to their content and expertise of the referees. The editor of the field who examines the study suggests at least two referees from the referee pool of the European Archieves of Social Sciences, or may suggest new referees suitable for the field of study. The referee suggestions from the field editor are evaluated by the editors and the studies are forwarded to the referees by the editors. Referees must guarantee that they will not share any process and document about the work they evaluate.

Referee Reports:

Referee evaluations are generally; It is based on originality, method used, compliance with ethical rules, consistent presentation of findings and results, and review of the literature. This review is based on the following factors:

Introduction and literature: the evaluation report includes the presentation and aims of the problem in the study, the importance of the subject, the scope of the literature on the subject, its currency and the originality of the study.

Method: The evaluation report includes information on the suitability of the method used, the selection and characteristics of the research group, validity and reliability, as well as an opinion on the data collection and analysis process.

Findings: The evaluation report includes opinions on the presentation of the findings obtained within the framework of the method, the accuracy of the analysis methods, the consistency of the findings reached with the aims of the research, the presentation of the tables, figures and visuals needed, and the conceptual evaluation of the tests used.

Evaluation and discussion: the evaluation report includes discussion of the topic based on the findings, compliance with the research question (s and hypothesis (s), generalizability and applicability.

Conclusion and suggestions: the evaluation report includes a contribution to the literature, an opinion on suggestions for future studies and applications in the field.

Style and expression: the evaluation report includes the opinion about the content of the study title, the use of Turkish in accordance with the rules, the submission and references to the language of the full text in accordance with the examples under the journal publication principles.

General evaluation: the evaluation report includes an opinion about the originality of the study as a whole, and its contribution to the literature and practices in the field.

During the evaluation process, the referees are not expected to make adjustments according to the typographical features of the study.

Referee Evaluation Process:

The time given to the referees for the referee evaluation process is 3 weeks. Correction suggestions from referees or expert editorial board members must be completed by the authors within 3 weeks. Referees can examine the revisions of a work and decide whether it is appropriate or, if necessary, request corrections more than once. 

Evaluation Result:

Comments from referees are reviewed by the field editor within two (2) weeks at the latest. As a result of this review, the editor of the field transmits its final decision regarding the study to the editors.

Editorial Board Decision:

Editors prepare editorial board opinions on the study based on the opinions of the field editor and referees. The opinions prepared are forwarded to the author (s) by the editor together with the field editor and referee recommendations within 1 week at the latest. In this process, the works that are given negative opinions are returned without requesting a plagiarism check. The final decision is made according to the results of the plagiarism audit reports for the studies with positive opinions.

Publication Evaluation Process:

It is envisaged that the publication evaluation process of the studies submitted to the European Archieves of Social Sciences will be completed within approximately 3 months. However, the period between the date when the referees or editors request a correction from the author (s) and the date when the author (s) complete the corrections are not included in this 3-month period.

Objection to the Evaluation Result:

The author (s) reserve the right to object to the evaluation result in the European Archieves of Social Sciences. The author (s) should send their objection justifications regarding their opinions and comments to the address “mehmet.cakici@neu.edu.tr” in scientific language and by referring to their grounds. The objections made are examined by the editors within one month at the latest (opinion can be requested about the objections made to the referees of the study) and a positive or negative response is provided to the author (s). If the objections of the author (s) to the evaluation result are found positive, the editorial board restarts the evaluation process by making new referees appropriate to the subject area of ​​the study.

Citation and Reference Control:

According to the publication ethics of the European Archieves of Social Sciences, it is mandatory to cite the articles accurately and completely. Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works and that if authors have used the works and / or words of others, it is properly quoted or quoted. This audit is done first by the referees during the evaluation and then by the editors according to the result of the similarity-plagiarism (iThenticate) program. All works plagiarism report is also checked over intihal.net.