Publication & Review Policy

Publication & Review Policy

1. Purpose and Scope

Holistence Publications conducts its scientific and cultural publishing activities in accordance with the principles of ethics, transparency, and impartiality. This policy defines the evaluation procedures for monographs, edited volumes, and book chapters published by our house. All processes strictly adhere to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Core Practices, the Scopus Books Evaluation Criteria, and the DOAB (Directory of Open Access Books) principles.

2. Peer Review Models

Depending on the type of scholarly work, two primary evaluation models are applied:

  • Full Book Submissions (Monographs): To measure scientific contribution and methodological rigor, these works undergo an Editorial & Expert Review process by at least two subject experts (Editorial Board members or independent external reviewers).
  • Book Chapter Submissions: These are subject to a Double-Blind Peer Review model conducted by at least two independent reviewers. The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept strictly confidential throughout the process.

3. Transparency and Record Keeping (Archiving Policy)

Holistence Publications maintains comprehensive records of all evaluation processes to ensure scholarly integrity:

  • Publications Prior to 2026: Peer-review reports, editorial decisions, and expert approvals for all works published before this date are maintained as physical copies in our institutional physical archives. These records are available for review upon official request.
  • Publications from 2026 Onwards: All evaluation steps, reviewer reports, and decision logs are managed digitally and permanently archived via the Open Monograph Press (OMP) system.

4. Ethical Oversight and Plagiarism Management

Our publishing house maintains a zero-tolerance policy regarding plagiarism. All submissions are screened using Similarity Check (iThenticate/Turnitin) software. In the event of suspected ethical misconduct, investigations are conducted in accordance with COPE flowcharts, and necessary actions such as errata or retractions are implemented.

5. Conflict of Interest and Impartiality

Editors, reviewers, and authors are required to declare any financial or personal conflicts of interest that may influence the evaluation process. Individuals who have co-authored publications, worked at the same institution, or had a consulting relationship with the author within the last 3 years are excluded from the review process.

6. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools cannot replace editorial judgment or peer review. These tools may only be used for linguistic editing and formal checks. Due to confidentiality principles, uploading manuscript drafts to external AI platforms during the evaluation stage is strictly prohibited.

7. Appeal and Review Process

Authors have the right to submit a reasoned appeal within 30 days of receiving the final decision. Appeals are re-evaluated by an independent editor or reviewer appointed by the Editorial Board, and the final decision is communicated to the author with justification.