Submission Review Process
1. Submission of Paper
The corresponding author submits the manuscript to the journal. This is done only via the online Manuscript Tracking System.
2. Editorial Office Assessment
The journal compares the manuscript’s format with the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it complies to the journal’s requirements. Manuscripts that do not comply to the Author Guidelines are rejected without any further evaluation.
3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
The EIC checks whether the manuscript is appropriate for the scope of the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without further peer review.
4. Invitation to Reviewers
The EIC sends invitations to individuals he or she regards as appropriate reviewers. As their responses are received, further invitations are issued if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained. All manuscripts are blind-reviewed by two referees.
5. Response to Invitations
Potential reviewers consider the invitation in light of their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they are very welcome to suggest reviewers whom they consider to be more appropriate.
6. Review Is Conducted
The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first reading is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further readings. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal with a recommendation to accept or reject it, or with a request for revisions (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The EIC considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ significantly, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to obtain some more opinions before making the final decision.
8. Decision Is Communicated
The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. The identity of the referees is also kept anonymous as a part of the double-blind review process.
9. Following Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent on for further processing. If the article is rejected or returned to the author for either major or minor revisions, the EIC should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email letting them know the final outcome of their review process. If the paper was sent back for revisions, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they opt out of further participation. However, where only minor changes are requested, the follow-up review might be done by the EIC.
10. Publication Fee
No publication fee or any charge from authors in the evaluation process but during publication. An article processing charge (APC) is a fee which is charged to authors to make a work available open access to their articles. The publication fee is 350 TL.
In-text citations and end reference lists should both ascribe to the APA system.
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). Intruduction. Averroes. On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy. (Trans. & ed. G. F. Hourani). London: Luzac and Company, 2-8.
B. JOURNAL ARTICLE
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.
C. OTHER FORMS
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 Symposium or a 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.