Quick Access

Bu Dergi DOI ve Crosscheck üyesidir

Author Guidelines

Author Guidelines

1. Beytulhikme is a peer-reviewed academic journal and is published biannually in June and December. The official languages of the journal are Turkish and English. 

2. In addition to original research papers, Beytulhikme is also pleased to publish works related to academic activities in philosophy, interviews, book and paper reviews, and critical reviews. There is a strict limit in length for these kinds of submissions: Such works should be between 600-1000 words in length.

3. Beytulhikme is also pleased to publish translations. All translations must include the title of the original paper, the name of the original author, the date and the place of the original publication, the information about the original publishing company and its consent if it is still under the copyright protection. 

4. All manuscripts must contain a 150-word abstract and key words both in Turkish and English. The manuscripts should not exceed 5000 words. Also, the text must be double-spaced. All margins must be set at 4.5 cm except the bottom margin which must be 3.5 cm. References and bibliography should be given at the end of the paper in APA Style.

5. Each submission is evaluated by at least two referees. Since the manuscripts are double-blind reviewed, they must be prepared for anonymous reading, with no self-reference in any section of the works submitted. The submissions should be made electronically via the Manuscript Tracking System through the journal’s website.

6. Any pictures or images to be used in the paper should be submitted to the journal as a single separate JPG or JPEG file and should not exceed 10x20 cm in size.

7. The Editorial Board is fully authorized to make the final decision whether to publish any work submitted. Authors are fully responsible for all ideas and contents of their works. Once published, authors transfer the exclusive copyrights of their work to the journal indefinitely; thus Beytulhikme owns all copyrights of the works published in the journal.

Review Process for Submissions

1. Submission of Works

The author or the corresponding author?­in the case of multiple authors?submit the manuscript to the journal and provide the required personal information of the author(s) during submission. The general procedure of the manuscript submission is online via the Manuscript Tracking System.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editorial Board checks whether the manuscript is technically suitable for publication in terms of the instructions given in Author Guidelines Section before assigning it to referees. At this point, the work submitted is assessed not by its content, but rather by its textual organization, style and general grammar.

3. Assessment of the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The EIC checks whether the manuscript is in accordance with the general policy of the journal, and evaluates the authenticity of the content and the originality of the topic. The EIC reserves the right to stop continuing the review process any further at any point and to decline the submission on editorial grounds.

4. Invitation to Referees

The EIC sends invitations to referees related to the field of study to review the papers found eligible in the Editorial Assessment. As a general policy, two referees are assigned to each work. However, the EIC may invite more referees if there is indecision about the quality of the paper. All papers found eligible to be published in the journal should have at least two positive reports that approve the publication of the work.

5. Response to the Reviewing Invitation

The invited referees accept or decline to review the manuscript by their areas of interest and their personal workload. Referees who refuse the invitation are kindly asked to recommend any other potential referees.

6. Reviewing Process

The reviewing process consists of two stages: scanning and detailed analysis. The referee may disapprove the manuscript at the initial stage if there are major problems related to the writing style of the author or the presentation of the philosophical views. If the decision of the referee about the quality of the manuscript is positive at the end of the scanning process, the referee goes ahead to the second stage and starts to review the manuscript more elaborately. The referee is expected to share his/her academic opinion by providing side notes for the author. Once the reviewing process is completed, the referee sends his/her report to the editorial board with a recommendation either (1) to accept or (2) to reject the manuscript or (3) to request the author to make some revisions on the manuscript for reconsideration.

7. Final Assessment of the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The EIC takes all the reviews of the referees into account to make an overall decision. If the final assessments of the referees differ radically for the EIC to decide whether to publish the manuscript, the EIC may invite an additional referee in order to receive an extra opinion to arrive at a conclusion.

8. Informing the Author about the Decision of EIC

The editor in charge sends an email to the author in order to inform him/her about the final decision for publishing his/her manuscript. The editor in charge also delivers the referee reports and comments on the manuscript to the author. As required by the double-blind process of reviewing, the identity of referees is not revealed at this point.

9. Further Steps

If the manuscript is considered successful at the end of the reviewing process, the editorial board prepares it for the publication. If the manuscript is rejected or sent back to the author for revision, the editor in charge mostly delivers the referee reports to the author, too, with the purpose of assisting the author to improve his/her manuscript for future submissions. When a revision is asked from authors, referees expect a revised version of the manuscript to re-assess. After re-assessing, the recommendation of the referees may be either (1) to accept or (2) to reject the manuscript for publication. If only minor revisions are required from the authors by the referees, the editor in charge mostly does not ask the referees to re-assess the revised manuscript. At this point, the EIC holds the right to decide to publish the manuscript revised by the author.


In-text citations and end reference lists should both ascribe to the APA system.


One Author

Ryle, G. (2009). The Concept of Mind. London & New York: Routledge.

Two or More Authors

Whitehead, A. N. & Russell, B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edition, Translation, Collection, or Letter to Editor

Alfarabi (1962). Alfarabi’s Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. (Trans. M. Mahdi). New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Aristotle (1925). Metaphysica. (Trans. W. D. Ross). The Works of Aristotle, vol. VIII. (Ed. W. D. Ross). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kant, I. (2000). Critique of Pure Reason. (Trans. P. Guyer & A. W. Wood). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Locke, J. (1974). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. (Ed. A. D. Woozley). New York: Meridian Book.

Chapter or Other Part of a Book

Sorabji, R. (1990). The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle. Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence. (Ed. R. Sorabji). New York: Cornell University Press, 1-30.

Preface, Foreword, Introduction, or Similar Part of a Book

Hourani, G. F. (1976). Introduction. Averroes. On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy. (Trans. & ed. G. F. Hourani). London: Luzac and Company, 2-8.


Article in a Print Journal

Kripke, S. (2005). Russell's Notion of Scope. Mind, 114, 1005-1037.

Article in an Online Journal

Frias, L. (2013). Moral Responsibility after Neuroscience. Filosofia Unisinos, 14 (1), 35-44.

Article in a Newspaper or Popular Magazine

Mendelsohn, D. (2010). But Enough about Me. New Yorker, January 25.


Book Review

McEvoy, M. (2008). Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism by Paul Boghossian. Metaphilosophy, 39, 144-150.

Thesis or Dissertation

Arriew, R. (1976). Ockham’s Razor: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony. PhD Thesis. Illinois: Graduate College of the University of Illinois.

Paper Presented at a Meeting or Conference

Adelman, R. (2009). Such Stuff as Dreams Are Made On: God’s Footstool in the Aramaic Targumim and Midrashic Tradition. The Annual Meeting for the Society of Biblical Literature. New Orleans, Louisiana: November 21-24.


Google (2009). Google Privacy Policy. Last Modified March 11, 2009. http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacypolicy.html.

Advanced Search



    Beytulhikme pek çok indeks ve veritabanında dizinlenmektedir. Bunlardan bazıları şunlardır: Academic Journals Database • Akademia Sosyal Bilimler İndeksi (ASOS) • Arastirmax Sosyal Bilimler İndeksi • CiteFactor Academic Scientific Journals • EBSCO TOC Premier • European Reference Index for Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH Plus) • Genamics Journal Seek • Index Islamicus • International Citation Index (ICI) • İSAM İlahiyat Makaleler Veritabanı • OCLC WorldCat • One Belt, One Road Reference Source • Philosopher’s Index • PhilPapers Index • Polska Bibliografia Naukowa (PBN) • Ulakbim Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Veritabanı • Ulrich's Periodicals Directory • WoS - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).


Address :MC Reklam Basın ve Yayıncılık, Eymir Mah. M.Golu Cad. L5-3 Golbasi, Ankara, TURKEY
Telephone :+90-312-596-45-92 Fax :+90-312-596-45-92
Email :beytulhikme2011@gmail.com

Web Yazılım & Programlama Han Yazılım Bilişim Hizmetleri