PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Stage Overview

No.	Stage	Summary	Typical time
1	Initial evaluation	Editors check the scope, the format, the originality, and the ethics of the manuscript.	Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers
2	Assignment of reviewers	At least two independent reviewers are invited, and the manuscript is anonymized.	Within two weeks
3	Review	Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and recommend a decision.	Usually two weeks
4	Decision	The Editor in Chief decides to accept the manuscript, to ask for a revision, or to reject it.	About one to two months from submission to the first decision
5	Revision	Authors revise the manuscript, and the revision is checked.	Two weeks for a minor revision and four weeks for a major revision
6	Publication	The final version is copyedited, formatted, and published in an upcoming issue.	About three to six months from acceptance

These times are estimates and not guarantees. They depend on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of review rounds. The dates of the issues are shown on the Publication Frequency page.

---

1Initial Evaluation

When a manuscript is submitted, the editors check the following four points.

Check	What the editors examine
Scope and focus	Whether the manuscript fits the journal and meets the conditions for publication.
Format	Whether the manuscript follows the citation style and the instructions in the Author Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation. A manuscript that does not comply is returned to the authors for reformatting.
Originality	The editors screen the manuscript for similarity with Turnitin, in line with the Plagiarism Policy. Authors are encouraged to run their own similarity check before submission. A similarity result is a screening signal and not proof of plagiarism. A high result leads to an examination by an editor and not to automatic rejection.
Ethics	For community service that involves participants, partners, or community groups, the manuscript must describe the permission and the consent that were obtained and must include the statements that are required in Publication Ethics.

---

2Assignment of Reviewers

• At least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise are invited to review each research article.
• Reviewers should come from institutions that are different from the institution of the corresponding author.
• Reviewers accept or decline the invitation on the basis of their expertise, their availability, and any conflict of interest.
• The target is to complete the assignment of reviewers within two weeks.
• Researchers who wish to serve as reviewers can register through the Call for Reviewer form. The current reviewers are listed on the Reviewer Board page.

2.1 Anonymity

Author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and author contribution statements are removed from the manuscript that is sent to the reviewers. They are kept in a separate title page file that the reviewers do not receive. Statements about funding and competing interests are kept by the editors. Personal information in the properties of the files is also removed.

2.2 Conflicts of interest

A reviewer or an editor who has a conflict of interest with a manuscript must decline the invitation or abstain from the evaluation. If an editor or a member of the editorial board submits a manuscript, it is handled by an editor who is not involved in it, and the author takes no part in the evaluation or in the decision, as described in the Conflicts of Interest policy.

---

3Review

Reviewers assess the scientific quality, the originality, the validity, and the relevance of the manuscript. They are usually given two weeks to complete the review, and any extension must be agreed with the editorial office. Each reviewer recommends acceptance, revision, or rejection and gives constructive feedback that helps the authors to improve the manuscript. The table below shows the questions that reviewers ask about each part of the manuscript.

Section	Reviewer questions
Title and abstract	Does the title describe the community service activity accurately? Does the abstract state the problem, the method, the main results, and the contribution? Are the keywords appropriate?
Introduction	Are the background, the problem or the need of the community, the partner or the target group, the state of the art, the novelty, and the objective of the activity clear?
Method of the activity	Are the approach, the participants or partners, the stages of implementation, the science or technology that is applied, and the instruments of evaluation appropriate and described clearly? Are permission and consent described?
Results and Discussion	Are the results correct and clear? Are the outcomes of the activity linked to earlier studies and theory? Does the discussion address the potential, the obstacles, the challenges, and the problems that were met in the community?
Conclusion	Is the conclusion supported by the results, and does it answer the objective of the activity?
References	Are the references accurate, current, and written in the required style, and do they include relevant earlier work?
Ethics and integrity	Are there signs of plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed use of generative AI, or other concerns?

---

4Decision

The Editor in Chief makes the final decision on the basis of the comments of the reviewers and the conditions for publication. When the comments of the reviewers differ significantly, an additional reviewer may be invited.

Decision	Meaning	Time for the authors
Accept	The manuscript goes to copyediting and publication.	Not applicable
Minor revision	Small changes are needed.	Two weeks
Major revision	Substantial changes are needed.	Four weeks
Reject	The manuscript is not accepted for ABDIKAN.	Not applicable

The decision and the anonymous comments of the reviewers are sent to the authors through the online system. Publication fees never influence decisions, as stated on the Author Fees page.

---

5Revision Process

A resubmission must include:

1. The revised manuscript, with the changes highlighted.
2. A rebuttal letter that answers each comment and explains each change, or explains why a comment was not followed.

A manuscript with a major revision normally returns to the same reviewers for a second round of review. For a minor revision, further review is optional. Authors who need more time must notify the editors before the deadline.

---

6Complaints and Appeals

• Authors who disagree with a decision may appeal by email to jurnal.abdikan@gmail.com, with the subject "Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier]".
• The appeal must give clear reasons and evidence and must respond to the specific points of the decision. Disagreement alone is not a ground for reconsideration.
• An editor who is not involved in the manuscript reviews the appeal and may seek an additional opinion.
• The decision on an appeal is final, and a manuscript can be appealed only once.
• Concerns about misconduct are handled under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

---

7Publication

After acceptance, the authors submit the final version of the manuscript, which is copyedited and formatted for publication. The Editor in Chief sets the order of publication of the accepted manuscripts by considering the date of acceptance, the geographic distribution of the authors, and thematic issues. Changes after publication follow the Correction and Retraction policy, and scholarly comments follow the procedure for discussion after publication.

---

Publication Ethics Statement for Peer Review

Commitment	Summary
Confidentiality	Information about a manuscript and its review must not be disclosed by the editors, the reviewers, or others who are involved.
Objectivity and impartiality	Reviews are based on merit, are free from bias and conflicts of interest, and are constructive.
Timeliness	Reviews are completed promptly, and the authors are kept informed.
Transparency and accountability	Reviewers give reasoned comments, and editors decide fairly.
Conflicts of interest	Editors and reviewers declare conflicts of interest, and the journal takes steps to keep the evaluation unbiased.
Plagiarism and misconduct	Suspected cases are reported promptly and handled under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.
Recognition of reviewers	The journal acknowledges the contribution of its reviewers.

Author Guidelines Reviewer Board Publication Frequency Publication Ethics