Evaluation Principles
1) The articles to be evaluated should not have been published before or should not be in the process of evaluation in another journal.
2) Manuscripts submitted after pre-checking are scanned for plagiarism using Ithenticate software.
3) Selçuk Dental Journal conducts a double blind review process. The suitability of incoming articles for the journal is first evaluated by the editor and/or field editors. The eligible articles are sent to at least two independent referees who are experts in their fields.
4) Articles are evaluated independently of the ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious beliefs and political philosophy of the authors. The editor-in-chief ensures that the manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated fairly by double-blinding.
5) The editor-in-chief does not allow any conflict of interest that may arise between authors, editors and referees.
6) The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The editor's decision is final.
7) Editors are not involved in decisions about manuscripts written by themselves or by family members or colleagues, or that relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures.
All information on manuscripts submitted for consideration must be kept confidential until the manuscript is published. Referees should be dedicated in this respect. If the referees notice any copyright infringement or plagiarism by the author, they should report this to the editor.
If the referees consider themselves inadequate in the evaluation of the submitted article or if they cannot make the evaluation on time, they should inform the editor and should not be involved in the process.
It should be clearly stated that the manuscripts sent to the referees are the private property of the authors. Therefore, referees or editorial board members cannot discuss the manuscripts with other individuals. Care should be taken to keep the identity of the referees as confidential as the authors.
Evaluation Process
Peer review: Double Blind
Double Blinding: After checking for plagiarism, the editor-in-chief evaluates the originality, methodology, relevance and compatibility of the subject matter with the journal. Subsequently, the editor ensures that the manuscripts are evaluated fairly by double-blind refereeing and if the manuscript meets the formal principles, it is submitted to the evaluation of at least two referees from Turkey and/or abroad. After the changes deemed necessary by the referees are made by the authors, the manuscript is approved for publication.
Review Time: Pre-Publication
Author- review Interactions: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Time in Review: The time taken until the first decision is approximately 30-45 days for research articles that are taken to the referee process for review in Selçuk Dental Journal.
Plagiarism Check: Selçuk Dental Journal scans the articles to prevent plagiarism with Ithenticate.
Number of Referees Reviewing Each Article: Two-three
Allowable Duration: 20 days (5 days invitation and 15 days evaluation). This period can be extended by adding 10 days.
Decision: For the article to be accepted for publication by the Editor, at least two referees must make an acceptance decision.
Suspicion of Ethical Violation: When the referees detect a situation that suggests a suspicion of misconduct in the manuscript, they should report it to the editor. The editor is responsible for taking the necessary actions in accordance with COPE recommendations.
The editor-in-chief reviews the submitted manuscript on the same day and, if he/she deems the manuscript worthy of detailed review, sends it to the deputy editor for further review. For research articles, the deputy editor/field editor usually reads the entire article from start to finish. We aim to reach a decision on incoming manuscripts within two to three weeks. Usually, the first decision is made within a few days after submission. Inadequate originality of the manuscript or the topic being outside the scope of the journal are the usual reasons for rejection. If we think that Selçuk Dental Journal is not the right journal for the study, the authors are provided with a quick turnaround so that they can send their work to alternative places. At the editorial board meeting, your articles will be read by the members and their importance, originality and scientific quality will be discussed. Even if the subject of the article is important, current, and appropriate to the scope of the journal, articles without a research question may be rejected. Everyone attending the meeting declares relevant conflicting interests at the beginning. Anyone with a significant conflict of interest leaves the room while the manuscript is being discussed (depending on the nature and extent of their interest) or joins the discussion last.
After the preliminary review, your article is sent by the field editor to two referees. The referees advise the editors, who make the final decision. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflicts of interest about the submitted manuscripts. After the evaluation, the final decision is made by the editor-in-chief after the external referees.
In some cases, if serious misconduct is suspected about the research, the ethics editor of Selçuk Dental Journal and third parties deemed appropriate by the editor may evaluate the article.
For all submitted manuscripts, we aim to reach a final decision on publication within 6-8 weeks of receipt. If we decide that the manuscript needs revision, we ask the authors to revise and upload their manuscripts to the system within the following month.
Selçuk Dental Journal provides open access to all its articles. Thus, articles can be accessed free of charge.
If you notice any errors or omissions in the published articles, you can inform the editor-in-chief by sending an e-mail to the editor-in-chief.
Referee Process Principles for the Work of the Editorial Staff
Editorial and analysis articles written by our own editors are not subject to external peer review. However, original research articles are sent to at least two external reviewers for blind review. During this period, the roles of those editors are suspended.
Authors' Responsibilities
The author should be attentive to research and publication training.
The author should not attempt to publish the submitted work in different journals.
The author should indicate all the works used in the research in the bibliography.
Responsibilities of the Editor
What is important for the editor is the scientific content and does not evaluate the incoming manuscripts based on the ethnic origin, gender, citizenship, religious beliefs or political opinions of the authors.
The editor ensures fair double-blind peer review of incoming manuscripts and ensures that the contents of the manuscript are kept confidential before publication. The referees and the editorial board cannot discuss the articles with other people and the editorial board cannot discuss the articles with different people. If there is an issue that cannot be clarified, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with another reviewer.
The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. If necessary, a correction note or retraction belongs to the editor.
The editor does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees. He/she has full authority only to appoint referees. The final decision on the publication of manuscripts belongs to the Editorial Board.
Responsibilities of Reviewer
Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest related to the research, authors and/or research funders.
Reviewers should make an objective evaluation.
Referees should not use offensive language and style to the authors during the evaluation.
Reviewers should keep all information about the article confidential during the evaluation process until the article is published.
Referees should inform the editor if they notice any copyright infringement, plagiarism or abuse in the articles they evaluate.
Reviewers should withdraw from the review process if they consider themselves inadequate in the submitted work or if it is not possible to make a timely evaluation.
Reviewers are expected to consider the following points during the evaluation process: Does the article contain new and important information? / Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article? / Is the methodology described in a coherent and comprehensible manner? / Are the interpretations and conclusions substantiated by the findings? / Are adequate references given to other studies in the field? / Is the language quality adequate?
Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Check
Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by the editor for compliance with the journal's publication principles, academic writing rules and the journal's Citation System, and are scanned for plagiarism using the iThenticate programme. This preliminary review process is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The plagiarism similarity rate must be less than 20%. If the citation and quotation are not in accordance with the rules, plagiarism may still occur even if the similarity rate is 1%. Therefore, arrangements should be made in accordance with the rules.
Citation / Indirect Citation: If the thought, determination, discussion in the cited source is written in the citing researcher's own sentences, a footnote sign (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. If a certain page or page range of the work is cited, the page number should be given. If there is a reference to the entire work, that is, if there is a reference to a dimension that requires the reader to examine the entire work, the source should be indicated in the footnote after the phrase " cf. on this subject", " cf. about this opinion", " cf. about this discussion" or just " cf.".

Quotation/Iquotation: If the relevant part of the source is taken exactly as it is, without touching the point and comma, the quoted part is "given in double quotation marks" and the source is indicated by giving footnote number 1 at the end. Quotations that exist in the directly quoted text are written using 'single quotation marks'. If the directly quoted part is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it is shown in a separate paragraph. In order to distinguish long quotations from the main text, it should be preferred to write in a font size one smaller than the normal text size and to indent the entire paragraph from the left at the beginning of the line. In direct quotations, some words, sentences and paragraphs may be omitted, provided that they do not change the meaning. Ellipses (...) are placed in place of the omitted parts. It is not correct to write the part quoted verbatim from a source without enclosing it in "double quotation marks" and to be contented with just writing the source at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be accused of violation of publication ethics (Plagiarism) (see www.isnadsistemi.org).
Field Editor Review
After the Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Scanning, the appropriate studies are examined by the field editor in terms of problematic and academic language and style. This review is completed within a maximum of 10 days.
Reviewer Process (Academic Evaluation)
The studies evaluated by the field editor are taken into the referee process. It is sent to at least two external referees who have a doctoral thesis, book or article on the relevant subject for evaluation. The process is carried out in confidentiality according to the principles of double blind refereeing. On the online referee form, the referee is asked to give his/her opinion about the study he/she has reviewed with a statement of at least 150 words. Authors can object to the referees' opinions and the field editors provide the communication between them. When both referee reports are positive, the manuscript is submitted to the editorial board for evaluation. If one of the two reviewers gives a negative response, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. If at least two referees give a positive response, the study can be published. The publication of book and symposium reviews and doctoral thesis abstracts is decided after the evaluation of at least two internal referees (relevant field editors and/or members of the editorial board).
Proofreading Phase
In cases where the referees request corrections, the relevant evaluations are sent to the author and the author is asked to make the corrections. The author makes the corrections in the Word program with the "Track Changes" feature turned on or indicates the changes in the text in red. The author submits the corrected text to the field editor.
Field Editor Check
The field editor checks whether the corrections fulfil the requirements.
Reviewer Check
The reviewer checks whether the author has made the requested corrections.
Turkish Language Check
The manuscripts that pass through the referee process are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, the author is asked to make corrections. The review process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.
English Language Check
English articles are analysed by the English Language Editor and, if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The English language editor's review process is completed within a maximum of 20 days.
Editorial Board Review
Technical, academic and linguistic articles are examined by the Editorial Board and it is decided whether they will be published or not, and if so, in which issue they will be included. The Board decides by majority vote. In case of equality, the final decision is made in favour of the editor's decision.
Typesetting and Layout Phase
The manuscripts that are decided to be published by the Editorial Board are prepared for publication by typesetting and layout and sent to the author for review. This stage is completed one month before the issue in which the article will be published.
Data Submission to National and International Indexes
The data of the published issue is sent to the relevant indexes within 15 days.