Reviewers should ensure that all information regarding the submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published, and should report any copyright infringement and plagiarism by the author to the editor.

If the reviewer does not feel qualified about the subject of the article or if it does not seem possible to provide a timely response, he should notify the editor of this situation and ask him not to involve himself in the reviewer process.

During the evaluation process, the editor clearly states that the articles submitted for review to the reviewers are the exclusive property of the authors and this is a privileged communication. Reviewers and editorial board members cannot discuss articles with other people. Care should be taken to keep the identities of the reviewers confidential.

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the research article on the day it is sent, and if he/she thinks the article is worthy of further consideration, he/she sends it to the assistant editor for further review. The assistant editor usually reads each article from beginning to end for research articles. We aim for an initial decision on all articles within two or three weeks, but usually, the initial decision is made within a few days of submission. If we do not think that the Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences is the right journal for the study, we will promptly notify the authors so that they can send their work elsewhere without delay. The usual reasons for rejection at this stage are insufficient originality and the subject being outside the scope of the journal.

The next step for your research paper is our Editorial Board meeting. Members will read your article and discuss its importance, originality, and scientific quality. We mainly focus on the research question to make editorial decisions for research articles. Even if the subject of the article is relevant to the scope of the journal, current and important, we can reject the article if there is no research question. Of course, work will be rejected if it has serious defects. Everyone attending the article meeting is asked to declare relevant conflicting interests at the outset, and anyone with a significant conflicting interest either leaves the room or speaks last while the relevant article is being discussed (depending on the nature and scope of their interest).

If your article is eligible for the Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, the section editor sends your article to two external reviewers. Reviewers advise the editors, who will make the final decision. We ask the reviewers to approve their reports and declare any conflicts of interest in the article we send them. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after the external reviewer evaluation processes.

In cases where serious research misconduct is suspected in some articles, it can be seen by the ethics editor of the Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences and third parties deemed appropriate by the editor.

For all articles, we aim to reach a final decision on publication within 4 to 8 weeks after submission. If we propose a publication subject to revision, we usually ask the authors to revise and upload their articles to the system within the next month.

Accepted articles are published at https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/selcukjafsci as they are prepared. After publication, articles are selected for the next issue.

Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences provides open access to articles as part of its commitment to readers and authors. All of our articles are freely available online.

If you notice any errors in your published article, email the editor-in-chief who will let you know if corrections will be made.

Editorial articles and analysis articles written by Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences' own editors are not subject to external reviewer evaluation. On the other hand, original research articles are sent to at least two external reviewers within the scope of blind reviewing. During this time, the roles of those editors are suspended.

The author must comply with research and publication training.

The author should not attempt to publish the same work in more than one journal.

The author should fully indicate the works he has used in the writing of the article in the bibliography.

The editor evaluates articles for scientific content, regardless of the author's ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious belief, or political opinion.

The editor makes a fair double-blind peer-review of the articles submitted for publication and ensures that all information about the submitted articles is kept confidential before publication.

The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential and this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the articles with other people. The anonymity of reviewers should be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share one reviewer's review with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. It is also his/her responsibility to issue a correction note or implement a withdrawal as necessary.

The editor; does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors, and reviewers. Only the reviewer has full authority to appoint and the Editorial Board is responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of the articles in the journal.

Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors, and/or research funders.

The evaluations of the reviewers should be objective.

The language and style used by the reviewers should not be offensive to the author.

Reviewers must ensure that all information regarding submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published.

Reviewers should notify the editor if they notice a copyright infringement or plagiarism in the work they are reviewing.

A reviewer who feels inadequate to review an article or thinks that he/she will not be able to complete the review within the specified time should withdraw from the review process.

During the reviewing process, the reviewers are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following: Does the article contain new and important information? / Does the abstract clearly and neatly describe the content of the article? / Is the method coherent and clearly defined? / Are the comments and conclusions made substantiated by the findings? / Are adequate references given to other studies in the field? / Is the language quality adequate?

“Preliminary Review Form”, “Article Evaluation Form” and “Book Review Evaluation Form” used in the Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences (SJAFS) can be viewed on the journal website.

Study; The journal is reviewed by the editor for compliance with publication principles, academic writing rules, and APA Citation System, and is screened for plagiarism using the iThenticate program. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The plagiarism similarity rate must be less than 20%. Even though the similarity rate is 1%, if the citation and citation are not duly made, plagiarism may still be in question. In this respect, the author should know and carefully apply citation and citation rules.

Citation/Indirect Citation:  If a reference is made to an opinion, discussion or determination in a source and the cited opinion is lined up with the citing researcher's own words, a footnote (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. If the reference is to a certain page or page range of the work, the page number should be given. If there is a reference to the whole work, that is, if it is cited in a way that requires the reader to examine the whole work, the footnotes include "See about this.", "See about this opinion.", "See about this discussion." or just “see.” The source should be indicated after the statement.

Quotation/Quote: If the relevant part is taken from the referenced source exactly as it is, without touching the dot and comma, the quoted part is "given in double quotes" and the source is indicated by giving the footnote number 1 at the end. Existing quotations in the directly quoted text are written using 'single quotes'. If the directly quoted part is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it is shown as 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 indent the entire paragraph from the left at the beginning of the carriage line. Some words, sentences and paragraphs can be omitted from the directly quoted text, provided that the meaning is not changed. Three dots (…) are put in place of the removed parts. It would not be correct to write the part that is quoted from a source without enclosing it in "double quotes" and only to write the source at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be accused of publication ethics (Plagiarism) (see www.isnadsistemi.org).

The study, which has passed the Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening phase, is examined by the relevant field editor in terms of problematic and academic language style. This review will be completed in a maximum of 15 days.

The study, which passes the review of the field editor, is submitted to the evaluation of at least two external reviewers who have a doctoral thesis, book or article on the subject. The arbitration process is carried out in secrecy within the framework of the double-blind arbitration practice. The reviewer is requested to either state his opinion and opinion on the study he has examined in the text or justify it with a minimum 150-word explanation on the online reviewer form. If the author disagrees with the reviewer's opinions, he is given the right to object and defend his opinions. Provides mutual communication between the field editor, author, and reviewer, while maintaining confidentiality. If both reviewer reports are positive, the study is submitted to the Editorial Board with a proposal to evaluate its publication. If one of the two reviewers has a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third reviewer. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two reviewers. The publication of book and symposium evaluations and doctoral thesis summaries is decided upon the evaluation of at least two internal reviewers (relevant field editors and/or editorial board members).

If the reviewers want correction in the text they have examined, the relevant reports are sent to the author and he is asked to correct his work. The author makes the corrections with the "Track Changes" feature turned on in the Word program or indicates the changes in the text with red color. Submits the edited text to the field editor.

The field editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

The reviewer requesting correction checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

The authors of the studies, about which both reviewers have decided to be "publishable", are asked to expand the abstract part of the articles to 350-400 words.

It is reviewed by the English Language Editor and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The English language editor's control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

The articles that have passed technical, academic and linguistic examinations are examined by the Editorial Board, and whether they will be published or not, and if they will be published, in which issue they will be included. The Board decides by majority vote. In the event of a tie, the final decision is made in the direction of the editor's decision.

The typesetting and layout of the works decided to be published by the Editorial Board are made ready for publication and sent to the author for review. This stage lasts for a maximum of 15 days.

The data of the published issue is transmitted to the relevant indexes within 15 days.