1. General Publication Workflow
The book publication process is implemented through a structured editorial system consisting of successive administrative, editorial, ethical, and production-related stages. The process begins with the sending of author invitations and the completion of the required fee payments. Following this stage, authors upload their chapter files to the system for editorial consideration.
Payment of the participation fee in the publication process is completed at the initial stage of the process. During the continuation of the process, a new author may be assigned in place of authors who do not fulfill their obligation to write the chapter, in order to ensure the sustainability of editorial planning and to prevent disruption of the publication schedule. In the event that the author withdraws from participation or wishes to cancel the authorship process, requests submitted within the first seven days from the date of payment shall be taken into consideration. In cancellation requests made after the seven-day period has been exceeded, the remaining amount shall be refunded after the completion of accounting procedures and legal tax deductions.
After the submission of chapter files, the chapters are evaluated by the relevant chapter editors. At this stage, chapter editors review the chapters, request revisions, or recommend acceptance. Subsequently, a plagiarism check is conducted by the editorial office. In accordance with the publication policy, the similarity rate is required to be below 20%.
Following the plagiarism review, the chief editor examines each chapter and issues one of the following decisions: a revision request, acceptance of the chapter, or another editorial recommendation where necessary. Once the chapter is accepted, the process proceeds to the final production stage, namely typesetting.
Accordingly, the publication process consists of the following stages:
1. Sending author invitations and completing fee payments
2. Uploading chapter files
3. Review by chapter editors, including revision requests or recommendations for acceptance
4. Plagiarism check conducted by the editorial office, with the similarity rate required to be below 20%
5. Chief editor review, including revision request or chapter acceptance
6. Typesetting
2. Review Process Published on the Website
Section Editors and Reviewers are selected by the editor from among experts in the relevant academic field. All selected Section Editors and Reviewers are informed about their responsibilities, ethical principles, evaluation criteria, and the review process before undertaking the evaluation of a chapter manuscript.
From the moment they accept the invitation to serve as reviewers, Section Editors and Reviewers are required to comply with the rules set out in the sections titled “Reviewers’ Responsibilities and Ethical Principles” and “Review Processes.” These rules define the ethical, procedural, and evaluative framework within which the review is conducted.
Section Editors and Reviewers accept review assignments only when they are able to provide an appropriate evaluation within their own area of expertise. They are also required to respect the confidentiality of the review process. All information, documents, evaluations, and details related to the chapter manuscript under review are kept strictly confidential under all circumstances.
Section Editors and Reviewers who are invited to review a chapter manuscript submit their decision to accept or decline the review invitation within 5 days. If no decision is submitted by the end of this period, the review invitation is considered declined, and the editor assigns a new reviewer.
Reviewers who accept the invitation submit their comments within 20 days from the date of acceptance. If reviewers are unable to complete the review within this period, they may be granted an extension of up to 7 days where necessary. If no extension is requested, a new reviewer may be assigned.
When a Section Editor or Reviewer accepts the invitation to review a chapter manuscript, the editor removes the author’s information from the submission form and forwards the anonymized form together with the chapter manuscript to the reviewer. Every reviewer who accepts a review assignment completes the Review Form and explains, with concrete reasons, their decision concerning the acceptance, revision, further review, or rejection of the chapter manuscript.
3. Evaluation Criteria in the Review Form
In the Review Form, Section Editors and Reviewers provide their opinions on the following matters:
1. Alignment between the title and the content
2. Type of study
3. Target audience
4. Contribution to the field
5. Coherence of the topic
6. Definition of the scope and conceptual framework
7. Language and style of the study
8. Access to primary sources
9. Compliance of formulas, symbols, and units used in the study with international standards, where applicable
10. Sufficiency of visual elements, including images, tables, figures, graphs, and similar materials, in terms of quality and quantity, where applicable
11. Identification of sections or paragraphs containing inappropriate content, and determination of whether such sections should be shortened, expanded, or completely removed
12. Whether citations from other published works fall under copyright protection
Section Editors and Reviewers indicate their opinions on these matters in the Review Form. However, approval from reviewers on all of these points is not required for a chapter manuscript to be published. The chapter manuscript may be published after the necessary revisions are completed.
After completing the evaluation form, Section Editors and Reviewers issue one of the following decisions:
1. Accept
2. Acceptable after revisions
3. Requires further review after revisions
4. Reject
4. Procedures Following the Peer Review Process
After the peer review process, the feedback provided by the Section Editor or Reviewer is evaluated by the editor. If the decision is “Acceptable for publication after revisions,” the editor has the authority to return the chapter manuscript to the reviewer after the author completes the required revisions. However, before resubmitting the revised chapter manuscript to the reviewer, the editor may share all review reports and their own opinion directly with the editorial board.
If the decision is “Requires further review after revisions,” the editor resubmits the chapter manuscript to the Section Editor or Reviewer after the author makes the necessary revisions. Depending on the reviewer’s response, the editor may request further revisions from the author or share all reports and their own opinion with the coordination committee.
A Section Editor or Reviewer who requests revisions may ask for the chapter manuscript to be re-evaluated after the revisions are completed. In such cases, an additional period of 15 days is granted to the reviewer for this evaluation.
If the reviewer reports are negative, the editor informs the author that the chapter manuscript is not published and that the process is concluded. The editor also notifies the editorial board of this decision.
5. Additional Notes on Data, Confidentiality, and Conflict of Interest
In studies based on field research or data analysis, the reviewer may request that the editor obtain the relevant data in order to ensure a proper evaluation of the analyses. In such cases, the editor contacts the author regarding this matter and forwards the data to the reviewer.
Section Editors and Reviewers must not have any conflicts of interest related to the research, the authors, or the research funders. If a potential conflict of interest arises, the reviewer must contact the editor and disclose the potential conflict of interest. Conflict of interest situations are handled in accordance with the Conflict-of-Interest Framework published by COPE.
Section Editors and Reviewers may not use the data from the studies they are evaluating or share such data with others prior to publication.