Submission & Peer Review Process

  1. Home
  2. Submission & Peer Review Process

Submission & Peer Review Process

1. Authors are expected to pay attention to the instructions. The author should first read the Information for Authors and Writing Rules of History Studies and prepare the article accordingly. (In addition, the article should be prepared exactly according to the template on our website).

2. Article Submission: The author submits the article to the journal via Dergipark (History Studies does not accept e-mail submissions).

3. Editorial Board Review: The Editorial Board of History Studies checks whether the article has the required sections (such as abstract, keywords, introduction, main text, conclusion, bibliography) and whether the article is written according to the journal's editorial guidelines. The quality of the article is not evaluated at this point.

4. Evaluation by the editors: The editors check whether the article is suitable for the journal and whether it is sufficiently original and interesting. Otherwise, the article may be rejected without further review.

5. Plagiarism check: All manuscripts submitted for publication are subjected to a plagiarism check. The reports generated by the scanning system are evaluated by the editor for a final decision. Manuscripts with a similarity rate of more than 12% in total will be returned.

6. Invitation for Refereeing: After the manuscripts are passed through the plagiarism program, two (three if necessary) referees are assigned to review the manuscript. Referee assignment is made with a double-blind system.

7. Response to Review Invitation: The reviewer first evaluates the invitation to review the manuscript against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and accessibility. They then accept or decline the invitation. If possible, they may suggest alternative reviewers if they are rejected. Once the referee agrees to review the manuscript, they have 12 weeks to review the manuscript.

8. Reviewers' Review of the Manuscript: The referee takes the time to read the article several times. The first reading is used to form a first impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the referee may reject the article without further work. Otherwise, he or she will read the article several more times, taking notes to review the article in detail. He/she then uploads his/her report to my site with a recommendation for acceptance, revision or rejection of the article for publication.

9. Editor Evaluates Referee Reports: The editor considers the referees' reports before making a general decision. If the reports show major differences, the editor may send the article to a third referee for an additional review to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

10. If one of the referees' reports indicates that the article should be "corrected" and the other indicates that the article "cannot be published", the editor will review the article once more. After this review, the editor will either cancel the whole process or send it to a third referee, and the corresponding author will be notified of this result via the journal platform.

11. Referee Reports are sent to the author: The editor will notify the author via the journal platform, including the relevant referees' reports

12- After the article is approved for publication by the referee and editor, the author uploads the final version of the article (by adding a large English abstract to the end of the article) to the system.

13- After the final version of the article uploaded by the author is read by the language editors, it is queued for publication by the editor.


How Can You Upload Your Article?

You can upload your article through the Dergipark system. (Copyright Transfer Agreement under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License) is available under the Files menu during Article Submission.

Click here for Dergipark History Studies page.


Article Evaluation and Publication Process


1. Application Phase

-The author uploads the article to the Dergipark system. At this stage, the author undertakes that the article is not under evaluation in another journal.
-The secretariat reviews the manuscript from a formal point of view and, if necessary, asks for corrections from the author about the article writing rules and citation methods. Following the pre-checking stage, the journal secretariat receives an iThenticate similarity report.
-Editor(s) may evaluate the article in terms of the importance of the topic, methodology and compatibility with the scope of the journal and may ask the author for editing or reject the article directly.
-The article is referred to the Area editor. The Area Editor re-evaluates the article in terms of its potential to contribute to the Area and its methodology, and may ask the author to edit the article or reject it outright if deemed necessary. The Area Editor sends the manuscript to at least two referees (three referees if deemed necessary) who are experts in the Area, and the double-blind peer review of the manuscript begins.
In the selection of referees, Area Editors are obliged to ensure that there is no relationship between the author/authors and the person to be appointed as a referee, especially "consultancy relationship", co-authorship, etc. Although it is not an obligation, care is taken not to send referees to referees working in the same department as the author.
-If the author fails to make the requested formal corrections at any stage of the submission process, the manuscript will be rejected without being included in the refereeing process.

2. Double Blind Refereeing Phase

-The referees is obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process.
-Referees are expected to answer the following questions during the evaluation phase:
        1. Is the Turkish and English title of the manuscript consistent with its content?
        2. Does the Turkish and English abstract reflect the article accurately and concisely?
        3. Is the study appropriate to the field specified in the title?
        4. Does the study contribute to the related discipline and does the study express a scientific value?
        5. Are the sources related to the subject adequate and up-to-date?
        6. Are the data and research method used in the study appropriate for the purpose?
        7. Is the study comprehensible in terms of language and spelling rules?
        8. Is the conclusion section sufficiently analyzed?
        9. Did the author(s) provide a new contribution and value regarding the subject researched?
        10. Are there any cases of plagiarism or verbatim quotation in the study?

-The referees can show their suggestions to the author on the text of the article and give suggestions for corrections on the text if they deem necessary. They can make suggestions to the editor about the article.
Referees re-evaluate the articles for which they decide Major Revision after the author's correction.
-In order for the editors to make an acceptance decision, at least two referees must recommend "Acceptance" or "Minor Revision: No Need for Reconsideration" recommendation.
-Manuscripts with two rejection decisions are rejected.

3. Publication Phase


-A correction is opened for the author to upload a "bibliography" to the Dergipark system.
-The article is sent to the layout and language editors. At this stage, the author may be asked for corrections if necessary.
-Articles are sorted according to the date of acceptance, published in the issue in which they appear, and sorted according to the date of acceptance in the issue in which they are published.

*The Editor-in-Chief has full authority at every stage of the relevant processes. When necessary, he/she can reject an article even if it has received two acceptances.
*All these processes take an average of 12 weeks.