The production process
All manuscripts will be initially assessed by the editor for suitability for the journal. Based on initial editor screening, manuscripts undergo rigorous double-blind peer review by two anonymous referees before accepted and published. When necessary, the referees’ criticism and suggestions may be sent to the author(s) for them to be able to revise or make the suggested corrections. The Editor is responsible for the final decision about acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. The Editor's decision is final.
The duration of the review process is dependent on the reviewers’ responses. Journal of Sustainable Digital Futures expects review processing duration as approximately 6-12 months. However please note that the review process can take more time depending on the number of rounds the reviews need to take place.
Your publication checklist:
• Provide accurate proofreading and clearly mark any corrections as soon as possible.
• When prompted, ensure you acknowledge any funding support.
Step 1: Accepted article received in production
• Link your Author Services account with your ORCiD.
• Accepted Article papers are downloadable and citable.
Step 2: Copyediting and typesetting
• We copyedit your article for style, grammar and nomenclature, to bring the standard of the text up to the level that your research deserves.
• We also typeset your article, to make it look great.
Step 3: Proofing and corrections
In order to increase the publication quality of the article accepted at the end of the double-blind review, we need to have Proofreading & Editing processes before the publication.
We offer the author(s) two options for these processes. The author(s) can choose one of them.
1. Author(s) can get Proofreading & Editing service from anywhere by documenting it.
2. Author(s) can request the Proofreading & Editing service from Journal of Sustainable Digital Futures. To do this, they should contact the proofreading editor (mesutdogan07@gmail.com).
Step 4: Early View Publication
• Early View articles are published on the WEB before inclusion in an issue. You can now view your published article online.
• No further changes to your article are possible from this point.
• Your Early View article is fully citable and carries an online publication date and DOI for citations.
• You can now share the online version of your published article with your colleagues.
Step 5: Issue published online
• The issue containing your article is now available online.
• You can share the online version of your published article with your colleagues.
Step 6: Access and sharing
When your article is published online:
• You receive an email alert (if requested).
• You can share the online version of your article with a wider audience.
Peer Review Guide
To evaluate an article sent from the system, follow the steps below:
• Login with your ID and password.
• Log in to the reviewer panel.
• Click the title of the article which be appointed for peer review by you from the new invitation section.
• Acceptance or denial of the peer review will ask to you in the page that will pop-up.
For the accept of peer review please click the “Accept the Review” that in the green section.
• You will see the full article in the “Documents” after accept review.
• After reviewing the article, please fill the review form in the “Reviews” section. Upload the review file if there is.
• Lastly click the button “Send the Review” that spotting right side of the page.
Peer Reviewing Processes
In the International Journal of Sustainable Digital Futures, the referees are selected from among the experts of the subjects covered in the articles. All selected referees are informed about the responsibilities of the referees and the ethical principles, article evaluation criteria and procedure of the Journal of Sustainable Digital Futures.
• Reviewer, must take into account after accept peer reviewing on the system “Responsibilities of reviewer and ethical principles to be followed” and “Reviewing Processes”.
• Reviewers should only accept reviewing of articles for which they have the necessary expertise to perform an appropriate review, can respect the confidentiality of blind peer review, and keep the details of the article confidential at all times.
• Reviewers invited for article review are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the review within 7 days. The reviewer who does not make a decision at the end of this period is deemed to have rejected the review and the editor appoints a new reviewer. The reviewer who accept the review are expected to express their opinions within 15 days from the date of invitation acceptance. An additional period of up to 7 days is given to the referee who does not complete the review process within this period, if the reviewer requests. If the referee does not request additional time, a new referee can be appointed.
• Each reviewer who accepts the invitation to review is asked to fill in a review form and declare the acceptance or rejection opinions about the article by providing concrete reasons.
• In this review form, the referees are expected to express their opinions on the following issues:
1. Title and Content Consistency
2. Language and Expression of the Article
3. Systematic Compliance with Scientific Criteria
4. Defining Scope and Conceptual Framework
5. Subject Integrity
6. Defining the Problem
7. Review of the Previous Studies (Literature Review)
8. Research Method
9. Presentation, Organization and Consistency of Information
10. Critical Perspective
11. Access to Primary Sources
12. Accessing New Scientific Studies
13. Mastery of the Terminology of the Field
14. Originality of Study
15. Getting Results
16. Consistency of the Presented Arguments and Rational Relation to Results
17. Contribution to the Field
The reviewers give an opinion on all of these issues by choosing one of the options Adequate, Not Sufficient, Partially Sufficient, Mostly Sufficient. The referees do not need to approve all of these issues in order for the article to be published. However, in the review form, the suggestions regarding the parts given as Not Sufficient and Partially Sufficient, and other suggestions to the author, should be stated in the "Note to the Author" section.
• After completing this form, the referees can take the following decisions:
o Revise Manuscript (Major Revision)
o Revise Manuscript (Minor Revision).
o Reject.
o Accept.
• If one of the peer review reports is positive and the other is negative, the article is sent to a third reviewer.
• A single peer review report is sufficient for the rejection of a manuscript, but at least two peer review reports are required for its acceptance.
• If one of the peer review reports "Accept" or "Minor Revision" and the other "Major Revision" and the editor's opinion favors the acceptance of the article, the manuscript is sent to the same reviewer after the author makes the corrections. The article is rejected or sent to a third peer reviewer depending on the opinion of the reviewer who has issued the report with "Major Revision" requirement.
• The reviewer requesting revision may request to re-evaluate the article after revision. An additional 15 days are given to the reviewer for this evaluation.
• The data of the articles based on field research or data analysis can be requested from the editor by the referee for a healthy review of the analyses in the article. The editor of the journal communicates with the author in this regard and transmits the data to the reviewer.
• Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors and/or research funders. When a conflict of interest is foreseen, the referee should contact the editorial board and indicate a possible conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into account in any conflicts of interest that may arise. (https://publicationethics.org/case/conflict-interest).
• Reviewers cannot make use of the data of the articles they have reviewed before they are published or share this data with others.
• The names of the reviewers who make evaluations in the journal are not disclosed/published.