Peer Review Principles - Sustainable Welfare

Peer Review Principles

Peer Review Policies

1) The articles that have not been published before or that are not yet under evaluation in another journal for publication and that are approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
2) Submitted and pre-checked articles are examined for plagiarism via iThenticate (or others) software.
3) The journal of Sustainable Welfare operates a double anonymized review process. All manuscripts will be initially assessed by the editor-in-chief for suitability for the journal. The manuscript which deemed suitable are then sent to at least of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper.
4) The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscripts regardless of the authors’ ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, and political philosophy. It ensures that the articles submitted for publication undergo a fair double-blind peer review.
5) The Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors, and reviewers.
6) The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the articles. The decision of editor-in-chief is final.
7) Editors are not involved in decisions about articles which they have written themselves or have been written by family members or colleagues or which relate to products or services in which the editors have an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures.
8) Reviewers should ensure that all information regarding the submitted articles remain confidential until the manuscript is published, and should report any copyright infringement and plagiarism on the part of the author to the editor-in-chief.
9) If the reviewer feels incompetent in terms of scientifically about article or if it does not think possible to respond in a timely manner, it should notify the editor-in-chief for this situation and ask not to be involved in the review process.
10) During the evaluation process, the editor-in-chief clearly states that the manuscripts submitted to our journal are private property of the authors and that this process is privileged communication. Reviewers and editorial board members can not discuss articles with other people. It should be taken to keep the identities of the reviewers confidentiality.

Review Process

Type of Peer Review: Double-blind
Double-blind peer review: After plagiarism control, eligible articles are evaluated by the editor-in-chief in terms of originality, methodology, importance of the subject covered, and compatibility with the scope of the journal. The editor-in-chief ensures that the manuscripts go through a fair double-blind review and, if the article conforms to the formal principles, it submits the incoming article for the evaluation of at least two reviewers from the country and/or abroad.
Review Timing: Pre-publication
Authors-Reviewers Interactions: Journal’s editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
The Average Time (Day): Until the first decision, the evaluation period for the articles that submitted to the review process at Sustainable Welfare is approximately 15 days.
Check for Plagiarism: Yes – Sustainable Welfare examine the articles for prevent plagiarism, using the İthenticate.
Number of Reviewers Review Each Manuscript: Two or Three
Time Allowed: 20 days. This period can be extended by adding 10 days.
Decision: In order for the manuscript to be accepted by the Editor, at least two reviewers have to make an acceptance decision.
Ethical Violation Suspicion: Reviewers should notify the editor-in-chief when they suspect research or publication misconduct. The editor-in-chief is responsible for carrying out the necessary actions by following the COPE recommendations.

1) Editor-in-chief review all articles on the day it is submitted and, if the editor-in-chief feels that the paper merits further evaluation, it gets sent to an assistant editor for a more detailed review. For research articles, the assistant editor will usually take each article through from start to finish.
2) We aim to reach the first decision on all manuscripts within two or three weeks, but often the initial decision is done within a few days of submission. If we do not think the Sustainable Welfare is the right journal for the work, we let authors know promptly so that they may submit their work elsewhere without delay. The usual reasons for rejection at this stage are insufficient originality and the fact that the topic falls outside the purview of the journal.
3) The next step for your research article is our Editorial Board meeting. The members will read your article and discuss its importance, originality, and scientific quality. To make editorial decisions for research articles, we focus mainly on the research question: even when the overall subject is relevant, topical, and important we may reject the article because the study didn’t ask a research question that added enough. Of course, we will also reject work if it has serious flaws. Everyone attending the manuscript meeting is asked to declare relevant competing interests at the start, and anyone with an important competing interest will either leave the room or speak last when the relevant article is being discussed (depending on the nature and extent of their interest).
4) Some articles may also be viewed by Sustainable Welfare's ethics editor and any third party deemed appropriate by the editor in cases where serious research misconduct is suspected.
5) We aim to reach a final decision on publication within 4 to 6 weeks of submission for all articles. If we make an offer of publication subject to revision we usually ask authors to return their articles to us within the subsequent month.
6) Accepted articles are published on https://www.sustainable-welfare.com/tr-tr/ as they become ready. Once published, articles are then selected for a subsequent issue.
7) Sustainable Welfare provides open access to peer-reviewed research as part of its commitment to readers and authors. We make all our research articles freely available online.
8) If you notice any error in your published article, please sent e-mail to editor-in-chief who will advise you whether a correction can be made.

Peer Review Process Principles for the Work of the Editorial Staff

Editorials and analysis articles written by the Sustainable Welfare’s own editors do not undergo external peer review. Articles reporting original research done at the Sustainable Welfare are independently peer-reviewed. During this period, those editors can not enter the journal system, user accounts are disabled.

Authors’ Responsibilities

1) The authors must comply with research and publication ethics.
2) The authors should not attempt to publish the same work in more than one journal.
3) The authors should fully indicate the works he has used in the writing of the article in the bibliography.

Editor's Responsibilities

1) The editor-in-chief evaluates the articles for scientific content, regardless of the ethnic origin, gender, citizenship, religious belief or political opinion of the authors.
2) The editor-in-chief makes a fair double-blind peer-review of the articles submitted for publication and ensures that all information about the submitted articles is kept confidential before publication.
3) The editor-in-chief informs the reviewers that the papers are confidential and this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board can not discuss the articles with other people. The anonymity of reviewers should be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share one reviewer’s review with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.
4) The anonymity of reviewes must be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share a reviewer’s review with other reviewers to clarify a particular point. 5) The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication.
6) Editor-in-chief does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and reviewers. It has full authority to appoint only reviewers and the editorial board is responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of the articles in the journal.

Reviewers’s Responsibilites

1) Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors and/or research funders.
2) The evaluations of the reviewers should be objective.
3) The language and style used by the reviewers should not be offensive to the author..
4) Reviewers must ensure that all information regarding submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published..
5) Reviewers should notify the editor-in-chief if they notice copyright infringement or plagiarism in the work they are reviewing.
6) A reviewer who feels inadequate to review an article or thinks that will not be able to complete the review within the specified time should withdraw from the review process.
7) During the review process, the reviewers are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following:

Does the article contain new and important information?
Does the abstract clearly and neatly describe the content of the article?
Is the method coherent and clearly defined?
Are the comments and conclusions substantiated by the findings?
Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
Is the language quality adequate?

Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Check

The manuscript is reviewed by the editor-in-chief for compliance with publication principles, academic writing rules and APA Citation System, and is checked for plagiarism using the iThenticateprogram. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The plagiarism similarity rate must be less than 15%. Even though the similarity rate is 1%, if the citation and citation are not duly made, plagiarism may still be in question. In this respect, citation and citation rules should be known and carefully applied by the author:

Citation/Indirect Citation: If a reference is made to an opinion, discussion or determination in a source and the cited opinion is written down the citing author’s own words, the end of the sentence should be cited according to the APA7 rules. If the reference is to a certain page or page range of the work, the page number should be given. If there is a reference to the whole work, that is, if it is cited in a way that requires the reader to examine the whole work, the footnotes include “See about this.”, “See about this opinion.”, “See about this discussion.” or just “see.” The source should be indicated after the statement.
Direct Citation: If the relevant part from the referenced source is taken exactly as it is, the cited part is given in double quotation marks and the source is indicated by giving the reference at the end. Existing quotations in the directly quoted text are written using 'single quotes'. If the directly quoted part is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it is shown as a separate paragraph. In order to distinguish long quotations from the main text, it should be preferred that they be written in a font size one smaller than the normal text size and the entire paragraph should be indented from the left at the beginning of the start of line. Some words, sentences and paragraphs can be omitted from the directly quoted text, provided that the meaning is not changed. Three dots (...) are put in place of the removed parts. It would not be correct to write the part that is quoted from a source without enclosing it in "double quotes" and to only write the source at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be accused of publication ethics (Plagiarism) (see https://www.apa.org/).

Field Editor Review

The study, which has passed the pre-examination and Plagiarism check experiences, is examined by the relevant field manager in terms of problematic and academic language style. This review will be completed in a maximum of 15 days.

Reviewer Process (Academic Evaluation)

The study, which passes the review of the field editor, is submitted to the evaluation of at least two external reviewers who have a doctoral thesis, book or article on the subject. The reviewer process is carried out in secrecy within the framework of the double-blind peer-review practice. The reviewer is requested to either state his opinion and opinion on the study he has examined on the text or justify it with a minimum 150-word explanation on the online reviewer form. If the author does not agree with the reviewer's opinions, he is given the right to object and defend his opinions. The Reviewer process provides mutual communication between the field editor, author and reviewer, while maintaining confidentiality. If both referee reports are positive, the study is submitted to the Editorial Board with a proposal to evaluate its publication. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third reviewer. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two reviewers. The book review, symposium evaluations and doctoral thesis abstracts is decided upon the evaluation of at least two internal reviewers (relevant field editors and/or editorial board members).

Revision Stage

If the reviewers want revision in the text they have examined, the relevant reports are sent to the author and he/she is asked to revise his work. The author makes the revisions with the "Track Changes" feature turned on in the Word program or indicates the changes in the text in yellow. Then, the author submit the edited text to the field editor.

Field Editor Control

The field editor checks whether the author has made the requested revisions in the text.

Review Control

The reviewers requesting revision checks whether the author has made the requested revisions in the text.

Expansion of the Abstract Section

Authors of studies deemed “publishable” by two reviewers are asked to expand the abstract part of their articles to 350-400 words..

Turkish Language Control

Studies that pass the peer-review process are reviewed by the Turkish Language Editor and Editor-in-Cief, and if necessary, revisions are requested from the author. The control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

English Language Check

The works that pass the Turkish language control are reviewed by the English Language Editor and if necessary, revisions are requested from the author. The English language editor’s control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Editorial Board Review

The articles that have passed technical, academic and linguistic examinations are examined by the Editorial Board, and whether they will be published or not, and if they will be published, in which issue they will be included is decided. The Board decides by majority vote. In the event of a tie, the final decision is made in the direction of the editor’s decision.

Typesetting and Layout Phase

The typesetting and layout of the works decided to be published by the Editorial Board are made ready for publication and sent to the author for review. This stage lasts for a maximum of 15 days.

Data Transmission to National and International Indexes

The data of the published issue is transmitted to the relevant indexes within 15 days.