UMAY YAYINEVİ (UMAY PUBLISHING HOUSE)

Evaluation of Book Submission

Peer Review Policy

Publication Ethics, Academic Publishing and Open Science Policy

1. Institutional Principles and Academic Responsibility

UMAY YAYINEVİ (UMAY PUBLISHING HOUSE) is an independent academic publishing house committed to international standards in the production, evaluation, and dissemination of scholarly knowledge. The publishing house operates in accordance with the principles of academic integrity, editorial independence, transparency, and sustainability.

This policy applies to all print and digital academic publications, including scholarly monographs, edited volumes, translations, and open access works.

Our publishing practices are guided by internationally recognized frameworks, including:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines
  • Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) principles of good publishing practice
  • Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) criteria for open access books
  • Scopus content selection and quality evaluation standards

2. Editorial Independence and Peer Review

Publication decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field. Editorial processes are conducted independently of the author’s institutional affiliation, academic title, nationality, gender, religion, or political views.

Scholarly works are subject to expert evaluation. Depending on the nature of the publication, peer review may follow double-blind, single-blind, or editorial board review models.

Editors and reviewers:

  • Must declare any conflicts of interest.
  • Are required to maintain confidentiality.
  • Are expected to uphold the principles of academic integrity and objectivity.

UMAY YAYINEVİ (UMAY PUBLISHING HOUSE) PEER REVIEW POLICY

UMAY YAYINEVİ (UMAY PUBLISHING HOUSE) conducts a rigorous evaluation process to ensure the scientific value, originality, and quality of all academic works it publishes. Our publishing house guarantees impartiality and high academic standards by adopting the “Peer Review” system.

1. Initial Assessment Process

All submissions sent to our publishing house are first reviewed by the editorial board according to the following criteria:

  • Compliance with publication principles and scope.
  • Originality and adherence to scientific methodology.
  • Similarity (Plagiarism) report compliance (İntihal.net/iThenticate/Turnitin, etc.).

2. Peer Review Method (Double-Blind Peer Review)

UMAY YAYINEVİ (UMAY PUBLISHING HOUSE) uses the Double-Blind Peer Review method in its evaluation process.

  • Author information is kept confidential from reviewers, and reviewer information is kept confidential from authors.
  • Each work is sent to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in their field.
  • In the event of a disagreement among the referees, the opinion of a third referee shall be sought.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Referees are responsible for evaluating the work from the following perspectives:

  • The contribution of the study to the literature and its relevance.
  • The accuracy and applicability of the method.
  • The consistency of the findings and the depth of the discussion.
  • Compliance with ethical rules.

4. Referee Reports and Decisions

Based on the reports from the referees, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

  1. Acceptance: The work may be published as is.
  2. Revision (Minor/Major): The author is asked to revise their work based on the reviewers’ suggestions.
  3. Re-evaluation: After major revisions, the work undergoes peer review again.
  4. Rejection: The study is rejected due to scientific inadequacy or ethical violation.

5. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibility

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers may not share the work they review with third parties before publication, and may not use the data contained within for their own benefit.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must report any conflict of interest (financial, academic, or personal) with the authors of the work they are reviewing to the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Authors have the right to file a reasoned objection to scientific errors or allegations of biased evaluation in referee reports. These objections are reviewed by the Editorial Board and a final decision is made.