Authors who wish to submit their works to The Journal of Cultural Studies should complete all application procedures via the https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kulturder link on our journal's TÜBİTAK Dergipark system. Blind referee system is applied in our journal. Blind refereeing is a method applied for the publication of scientific studies with the highest quality. This method forms the basis of the objective evaluation of scientific studies and is preferred by many scientific journals. In this context, the referee opinions have a decisive place in the quality of The Journal of Cultural Studies. All studies submitted for The Journal of Cultural Studies are forwarded to at least two referees through blind refereeing. The author and referee IDs of the works are hidden.
1. Initial Evaluation
The studies sent to The Journal of Cultural Studies are first sent by the editor to two members of the editorial board regarding the field in order to evaluate the journal's publicity policies, purpose and scope. Studies which do not comply with the purpose and scope of the journal, are weak in terms of language and expression rules in Turkish, English and other languages, contain scientifically critical errors, have no original value, and do not meet publication policies according to the opinion of editorial board members - are rejected at this stage. The authors of the rejected works are informed within fifteen days at the latest from the date of submission. The editor starts the evaluation process for the works deemed appropriate by taking the opinions of the Editorial Board.
At this stage, the editor examines the article in terms of form according to the rules of the journal. The editor asks the author of the article to send the corrections requested within 7 days at the latest for those who need correction. Works that are not sent within the given time are deleted from the system. The editor then ethically checks the articles using Turnitin or Ithenticate plagiarism programs. The results obtained from these programs are used to give the editor an idea about the article in terms of ethical principles. The studies deemed appropriate are included in the process of appointing referees.
2. Assignment of Referee
In order to ensure confidentiality, the editor prepares a file called "article peer review version" by deleting the author's or author's identity information in order to ensure confidentiality. According to the content and the areas of expertise, referees are assigned to the works. The editor and editorial board reviewing the study suggests at least two referees from the Advisory Board or Dergipark referee database according to their area of expertise. Two referees are appointed for the evaluation of the study. The editor sends the referee invitations via Dergipark with the information containing the summary of the study. Referees cannot share any process and document about the studies they evaluated. The editor can assign a field editor in cases where at least five articles are submitted in a field.
4. Referee Evaluation
Blind refereeing is practiced in the journal. The time allowed for the referee to respond to the invitation offer is 15 days. Invitations that receive a negative answer or are not answered within 15 days are cancelled and invitations are sent to a different referee. The time given for the referee who accepts the refereeing invitation is 15 days. For referees who cannot complete the evaluation within 15 days, an additional 7 days is given. The authors must complete the correction suggestions from the referees or the editor within 10 days in accordance with the "revision files". The referees or the editor can decide the suitability by examining the corrections of a work, and may request corrections more than once if necessary. If one of the two referees reports the article as "unpublishable", the editor sends the article to a third referee or the editors decide for themselves. If the third referee gives the same opinion, the article is rejected. In the event that the third referee gives a positive report, the report of the referee reporting the "unpublishable" opinion and the reasons presented in this report are also shared with the author.
In referee evaluation reports,
a. The compliance of the subject of the article with the Journal of Cultural Studies,
b. The originality or timeliness of the article subject,
c. The contribution level of the article to science fields,
d. The scientific fluency and comprehensibility of the language expression and expression of the article,
e. Providing information about the abstract, method, and findings of the article summary,
f. The clarity of the purpose of the article,
g. The discussion of findings of the article,
h. The suitability and adequacy of research methods,
i. The adequacy of the results and suggestions of the article,
j. The suitability and adequacy of the resources used in the article,
k. The comprehensibility and conformity of shape tables or annexes in the article (if any),
are evaluated as “very weak, weak, medium, good, very good”. The referee may also show correction requests on the text and make notes on the text.
Evaluation of the Study,
It is conducted by choosing one of the options below:
"1. It can be published, 2. It can be published after minor changes, 3. It can be published after important changes, 4. I would like to see the article again after the changes, 5. It cannot be published." The referee may also make additional explanations. These reports and additional correction files are archived by the editor and stored for five years.
The studies whose publication evaluation process has been completed are queued for publication.
Reports and additional correction files created in the Peer Review Process are archived by the editor and stored for five years.
