Arbitration Process Principles
Evaluation Principles
1) Articles that have not been previously published or are not currently under consideration for publication in another journal and are approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
2) Submitted articles that pass the initial check are scanned for plagiarism using the Turnitin or iThenticate software.
3) Journal Secretaries and the Appointed Assistant Editor conduct the double-blind peer review process. All submissions are initially assessed by the editor for suitability for the journal. Articles deemed suitable are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the article.
4) The Chief Editor evaluates articles without regard to the authors' ethnic background, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, or political philosophy. Accepted articles must undergo a fair double-blind peer review process.
5) The Chief Editor does not allow conflicts of interest among authors, editors, and reviewers.
6) The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The editor's decision is final.
7) Editors do not participate in decisions about articles related to products or services in which they or their family members or colleagues have an interest. Such submissions follow all regular procedures of the journal.
Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality of all information related to submitted articles until publication and should report to the editor if they notice any copyright infringement or plagiarism by the author.
If a reviewer does not feel qualified to assess the subject of an article or cannot provide a timely response, they should inform the editor and request not to be involved in the review process.
During the evaluation process, the editor explicitly states that the articles sent for review are the private property of the authors and are privileged communication. Reviewers and editorial board members cannot discuss articles with others, and the identity of reviewers should be kept confidential.

Evaluation process
Referee Type: Blind Review
Blind Review: After the plagiarism check, the eligible articles are evaluated by the chief editor in terms of originality, methodology, significance of the processed topic, and compatibility with the scope of the journal. The editor ensures that the articles undergo a fair double-blind peer review, and if the article adheres to the formal principles, it is submitted for evaluation by at least two reviewers from domestic and/or international sources. Upon the reviewers' recommendations and any necessary revisions made by the authors, the editor approves the publication of the article.
Review Time : Before Submission
Author-Reviewer Interaction: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Review Duration: The total time for template check, section editor evaluation, and peer review for an article uploaded to our journal averages 72 days.
Acceptance Rate: We publish approximately 50% of the articles submitted to our journal.
Plagiarism Check: Yes - We use iThenticate or Turnitin to scan articles and prevent plagiarism.
Number of Reviewers for Each Article: Two to three.
Allowed Time for Review: 10 days. This period can be extended by adding an additional 7 days.
Decision: For an article to be accepted for publication, it must receive approval from at least two reviewers as decided by the Editor.
Ethical Violation Suspicion: Reviewers should inform the Editor if they suspect any misuse of research or publication. The Editor is responsible for taking necessary actions following COPE recommendations.

The Chief Editor reviews the research article on the day it is submitted, and if deemed worthy of further evaluation, it is sent to the assistant editor for a more detailed review. For research articles, the assistant editor typically reads each article thoroughly. Although we aim to reach an initial decision within two to three weeks for all papers, the decision is often made within a few days after submission. If we do not believe that the Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences is the right journal for your work, we immediately notify authors so they can submit their work elsewhere. Common reasons for rejection at this stage include insufficient originality and the topic falling outside the scope of the journal.

The next step for your research article is the Editorial Board meeting. Members will read your article and discuss its importance, originality, and scientific quality. We primarily focus on the research question to make editorial decisions for research articles. Even if the subject of the article is relevant, current, and significant to the journal's scope, we may reject it if there is no research question. Of course, if there are serious flaws, the work will be rejected. Everyone attending the article meeting is asked to declare any potential conflicting interests at the outset, and anyone with a significant conflict of interest leaves the room or speaks last when the relevant article is discussed (depending on the nature and scope of their interests).

If your article is suitable for the Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, the section editor will send your article to two external referees. Referees provide recommendations to the editors who will make the final decision. We ask referees to approve their reports and disclose any conflicts of interest they may have regarding the submitted article. The final decision is made by the Chief Editor after the external referee evaluation process.

In cases where serious research misconduct is suspected, some articles may be reviewed by the ethical editor of the Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences and third parties deemed appropriate by the editor.
We aim to make a final decision about publication within 5 to 10 weeks after submission for all articles. If we offer a revision for a publication, we usually ask authors to revise and re-upload their articles within the next month.
As accepted articles are prepared, they are published at http://esjournal.cumhuriyet.edu.tr/tr/pub/archive. After publication, articles are selected for the next issue.
The Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences provides open access to articles as part of its commitment to readers and authors. All our articles are freely accessible online.
If you notice any errors in your published article, please send an email to the Chief Editor, who will inform you whether a correction will be made.
Principles of the Peer Review Process for Editorial Works by the Editorial Team
Editorial articles and analysis articles written by the the Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences’ own editors do not undergo external peer review. Original research articles, on the other hand, are sent to at least two external reviewers under blind peer review. During this period, the roles of those editors are suspended.

Author Responsibilities:
Authors must adhere to research and publication ethics.
Authors should not attempt to publish the same work in multiple journals.
Authors must accurately cite the works they have used in the article in the bibliography.

Editor Responsibilities:
The editor evaluates articles based on scientific content regardless of the authors' ethnic origin, gender, citizenship, religious beliefs, or political views.
The editor conducts a fair double-blind peer review of articles submitted for publication and ensures that all information related to the submitted articles is kept confidential before publication.
The editor informs reviewers that the articles contain confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. Reviewers and the editorial board cannot discuss the articles with others. Anonymity of reviewers should be maintained. In specific cases, the editor may share a reviewer's evaluation with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.
The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. When necessary, the editor may publish correction notes or initiate a retraction process.
The editor does not allow any conflicts of interest among authors, editors, and reviewers. The editor has full authority only in the assignment of reviewers, and the Editorial Board is responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of articles in the journal.

Reviewer Responsibilities:
Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest related to research, authors, and/or research funding providers.
Reviews by the reviewers should be objective.
The language and style used by reviewers should not be offensive to the authors.
Reviewers must ensure that all information related to the submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published.
If reviewers notice copyright infringement or plagiarism in the reviewed work, they should report it to the editor.
A reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to review an article or cannot meet the specified deadline should withdraw from the review process.
During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following: Is the article presenting new and significant information? / Is the abstract clearly and accurately describing the content of the article? / Is the methodology clearly and comprehensively defined? / Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by evidence? / Are there sufficient references to other works in the field? / Is the language quality adequate?

Pre-review and Plagiarism Check:
The manuscript undergoes an initial review by the editor for compliance with journal publication principles, academic writing rules, and the APA Citation System. It is also subjected to plagiarism screening using iThenticate or Turnitin. The pre-review is completed within a maximum of 15 days, and the plagiarism similarity rate should be less than 20%. Even if the similarity rate is below 1%, plagiarism may still be considered if proper citation and quotation methods are not followed.

Citation/Paraphrasing: When referencing an idea, discussion, or finding from a source, and if the cited view is expressed in the words of the citing researcher, a footnote marker (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. If the citation refers to a specific page or range of pages, the page number should be provided. If there is a general citation for the entire work, indicating that the reader needs to review the entire work, the citation should be followed by "See also," "Regarding this view," or simply "cf." in the footnote, and the source should be specified.

Quotation/Citation: If a section from the cited source is taken verbatim, without any changes, it should be presented "in double quotation marks," and a footnote number should be added to indicate the source. Directly quoted texts within the quoted text should be written in 'single quotes.' If the directly quoted section is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it should be shown as a separate paragraph. Long quotations should be indented from the left at the entire paragraph, with a font size one point smaller than the regular text size to distinguish them from the main text. Some words, sentences, and paragraphs can be omitted from the directly quoted text without changing the meaning, and ellipses (...) should be used to indicate the omitted parts. Simply providing the source at the end without placing the quoted section in "double quotation marks" would not be correct. Failure to comply with these rules may expose the author to charges of ethical violations.

Section Editor's Review:
After passing the pre-review and plagiarism check, the manuscript is examined by the relevant section editor for problematic issues and academic language-style. This review is completed within a maximum of 10 days.

Peer Review (Academic Evaluation):
The manuscript that has passed the section editor's review is submitted to at least two external reviewers who have a Ph.D., book, or article on the relevant topic. The peer-review process is conducted in confidentiality within the framework of double-blind peer review. The reviewer is requested to express their views and opinions on the reviewed study either in the text or by providing a justification of at least 150 words in an online review form. The author is given the right to object to and defend their views if they do not agree with the reviewer's opinions. The section editor ensures mutual communication between the author and the reviewer while maintaining confidentiality. If both peer reviews are positive, the manuscript is submitted to the Editorial Board for evaluation with the proposal for publication. If one of the two reviewers expresses a negative opinion, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. Manuscripts can be published with a minimum of two positive evaluations from reviewers. Decisions on the publication of book and symposium evaluations and doctoral thesis abstracts are made based on the evaluations of at least two internal reviewers (relevant section editors and/or editorial board members).

Correction Stage:
If reviewers request corrections to be made in the manuscript, the relevant reports are sent to the author, and they are asked to make corrections to their work. The author makes corrections with the "Track Changes" feature open in Word or indicates changes in red. The corrected text is then submitted to the section editor.

Section Editor's Control:
The section editor checks whether the author has made the corrections requested in the text.

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

Expansion of Abstract and Keywords:
For works for which two reviewers have given a "publishable" decision, the authors are asked to expand the abstract/keywords section to 200-250 words.

Turkish Language Control:
Manuscripts that have passed the peer-review process are examined by the Turkish Language Editor and the Chief Editor, and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The control process is completed within a maximum of 10 days.

English Language Control:
Manuscripts that have passed the Turkish language control are examined 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 10 days.

Editorial Board Review:
Manuscripts approved by technical, academic, and language reviews are reviewed by the Editorial Board to decide whether to publish and, if so, in which issue. The board makes decisions by a majority vote. In case of a tie, the final decision is made in favor of the editor's decision.

Layout and Pagination Stage:
The manuscripts whose publication has been decided by the Editorial Board are formatted and prepared for publication. The formatted manuscripts are sent to the author for review. This stage takes a maximum of 10 days.

Submission to National and International Indexes:
Data for the published issue is submitted to the relevant indexes within 15 days.