PEER REVIEW AND EDITORIAL EVALUATION POLICY

1. Purpose of the Policy

The evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Business Research–Turk is based on scientific rigor, originality, impartiality, confidentiality, research and publication ethics, and editorial independence.

The Journal’s peer-review and editorial evaluation processes are conducted in accordance with international best practices in scholarly publishing and the principles issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

Editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and alignment of the manuscript with the Journal’s aims and scope, irrespective of the authors’ nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, academic title, political views, religious beliefs, or other personal characteristics.

1. Peer-Review Model

The Journal of Business Research–Turk operates a double-blind peer-review model. Under this model:

• The authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers.
  • The reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors.
  • Peer-review reports are communicated to authors anonymously.
  • Reviewers’ names are not published with the article.
  • Peer-review reports are not made publicly available.
  • Reviewers’ identities are known only to the editors and editorial office personnel authorized to manage the peer-review process.
  • Reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to third parties unless the reviewer has provided explicit written consent or disclosure is required by law.

Authors must remove their names, institutional affiliations, email addresses, ORCID identifiers, project information, acknowledgements, and other identifying information from the main manuscript file. A separate title page containing the authors’ identifying information must be submitted.

Self-citations may be retained where scientifically necessary; however, wording that could compromise double-blind peer review must be avoided, and previous studies should be cited in the third person. Author information contained in the electronic properties or metadata of the manuscript file must also be removed before submission.

1. Content Subject to Evaluation

The Journal considers only original research articles. All research articles intended for publication in the Journal are subject to editorial screening and independent peer review.

Editorials, announcements, correction notices, retraction notices, expressions of concern, and other post-publication records are not treated as scientific research articles and may not be subject to peer review. When content that has not undergone peer review is published, its content type and the evaluation process to which it was subject are clearly stated.

1. Receipt of Manuscripts

A submission record and manuscript code are created for every manuscript submitted to the Journal. The corresponding author is notified that the submission has been received.

Registration of a submission in the system does not mean that the manuscript will be sent for peer review, accepted, or published. All submissions first undergo technical checks and editorial screening.

1. Preliminary Technical Check

The editorial office determines whether a submission meets the following basic requirements:

• All manuscript files have been submitted in full.
  • The manuscript complies with the Author Guidelines and the Journal’s template.
  • Complete author information has been provided.
  • ORCID identifiers have been provided for all authors.
  • An anonymized manuscript file suitable for double-blind peer review has been prepared.
  • Ethics committee approval has been submitted where required.
  • Information concerning informed consent has been provided where applicable.
  • A conflict-of-interest declaration has been submitted.
  • Funding and support information has been disclosed.
  • An author contribution statement has been submitted.
  • A data availability statement has been provided.
  • The use of generative artificial intelligence has been disclosed, where applicable.
  • All figures, tables, and supplementary files have been submitted.
  • The necessary permissions have been obtained for third-party materials.
  • The manuscript has undergone similarity and originality screening.

Incomplete or formally non-compliant submissions may be returned to the authors for the necessary corrections before scientific evaluation begins.

1. Similarity and Originality Screening

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal are screened using appropriate similarity-detection software before peer review. The similarity percentage alone is not used as a criterion for acceptance or rejection.

In their assessment, editors consider:

• The source of the similarity,
  • Whether appropriate citations have been provided,
  • Extensive and unnecessary repetition of text,
  • The possibility of text recycling or self-plagiarism,
  • The possibility of redundant or duplicate publication,
  • Content reproduced from other works without permission or attribution, and
  • The sections of the manuscript in which the similarity is concentrated.

The Journal does not apply a fixed similarity percentage as an automatic threshold for accepting or rejecting all manuscripts. Similarity findings are evaluated editorially by considering the nature of the text, the source of the similarity, whether appropriate attribution has been provided, and the potential effect on research integrity.

Where plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate publication, or other research misconduct is suspected, the evaluation process is suspended and the Journal’s Ethical Principles and Publication Ethics Policy is applied.

1. Editorial Screening

Manuscripts that pass the technical check undergo a preliminary scientific assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Field Editor.

The following criteria are considered at this stage:

• Alignment with the Journal’s aims and scope
  • Clarity and significance of the research problem or question
  • Originality of the study
  • Theoretical contribution
  • Methodological rigor
  • Appropriateness of the research design
  • Appropriateness of the data and analyses
  • Reliability of the findings
  • Compliance with ethical principles
  • Quality of language and expression
  • Engagement with national and international literature
  • Relevance to the Journal’s target audience

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized Field Editor may reject a manuscript that does not meet these criteria without sending it to reviewers. This decision is referred to as an “editorial rejection” or “desk rejection,” and the reasons for the decision are communicated to the corresponding author.

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to an appropriate Field Editor based on their subject matter and methodological approach.

1. Selection of Reviewers

Each research article is sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject matter and methodology of the research.

The following criteria are considered when selecting reviewers:

• Academic expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject matter and methodology
  • Recent scholarly publications in the relevant field
  • The ability to provide an impartial and high-quality evaluation
  • The absence of close personal or professional relationships with the authors
  • The reviewer and authors not being employed by the same institution
  • The absence of financial, academic, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest relating to the manuscript
  • The ability to complete the review within a reasonable period

Whenever possible, reviewers for the same manuscript are selected from different institutions and academic communities.

Members of the Editorial Board may serve as reviewers when their expertise is appropriate and they have no conflict of interest. However, evaluations must not be conducted exclusively by members of the Journal’s editorial team; independent external reviewers must be involved in the process.

1. Reviewer Invitations and Conflicts of Interest

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers are asked to confirm that:

• They have the expertise required to evaluate the manuscript.
  • They can submit their report within the specified period.
  • They have no conflicts of interest involving the authors or the study.
  • They will comply with their confidentiality obligations.

If a reviewer believes that a financial, institutional, academic, professional, personal, or other conflict of interest could affect the evaluation, the reviewer must decline the invitation and inform the editor.

A reviewer’s identification or inference of the authors’ identities during double-blind review does not, by itself, constitute a conflict of interest. However, if the reviewer believes that an existing or potential relationship prevents an impartial evaluation, the reviewer must notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

1. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for evaluation are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript with unauthorized third parties.
  • Use unpublished information, ideas, methods, or data belonging to the authors.
  • communicate directly with the authors concerning the manuscript.
  • Disclose confidential information about the peer-review process.
  • Retain manuscript files indefinitely in their personal archives.
  • Upload the manuscript, in whole or in part, to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or systems whose data-retention conditions are unclear.
  • Share manuscript content with unauthorized automated systems for the purpose of preparing a peer-review report or reaching an editorial decision.

If a reviewer wishes to consult another person for technical or methodological assistance, the reviewer must first obtain the editor’s written permission. The identity of the person contributing to the evaluation must be disclosed to the editor, and that person must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

After the review assignment has been completed, manuscript files and other documents downloaded for evaluation must be securely deleted.

1. Peer-Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

• Alignment of the subject matter with the Journal’s aims and scope
  • Significance of the research problem
  • Originality of the study
  • Adequacy of the theoretical framework
  • Currency and balance of the literature review
  • Clarity of the research questions or hypotheses
  • Appropriateness of the research design
  • Suitability of the research population, sample, study group, or data source for the research purpose
  • Validity and reliability of the data-collection instruments or, in qualitative research, the trustworthiness of the research
  • Clarity of the data-collection process
  • Accuracy of the analytical methods
  • Clear and consistent presentation of the findings
  • Whether the conclusions are supported by the data
  • Theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions
  • Disclosure of the study’s limitations
  • Compliance with ethical principles and research integrity
  • Quality of language, expression, and academic presentation

Reviewers must present their criticisms clearly, with appropriate justification, constructively, and on the basis of scientific evidence. Personal, insulting, aggressive, or discriminatory language is not acceptable.

Reviewers may ask authors to cite only sources that are scientifically necessary and directly relevant to the study. Unnecessary requests for citations to the Journal, the reviewer, or particular authors that lack scientific justification are prohibited.

1. Reviewers’ Recommendations

Following their evaluations, reviewers may make one of the following recommendations:

1. Accept as submitted
2. Minor revision
3. Major revision and re-evaluation
4. Reject

Reviewers’ recommendations constitute scientific advice to the editor. The final decision is not made automatically on the basis of the number of reviewer votes. The editor considers the scientific reasoning in the review reports, the consistency of the reports, and the overall scientific quality of the manuscript together.

1. Divergent Reviewer Opinions

Where substantial differences exist between reviewer opinions, the editor may:

• Compare the scientific reasoning provided in the reports.
  • Request clarification or an additional evaluation from the reviewers.
  • Send the manuscript to a third independent reviewer.
  • Obtain the opinion of an editor or independent expert in statistics or research methodology where a methodological issue is involved.

The third reviewer’s opinion is not, by itself, binding on the final decision. The authorized editor makes a reasoned final decision by considering the peer-review reports together with the editorial assessment.

1. Revision Process

For manuscripts requiring revision, authors are provided with:

• The editor’s decision letter,
  • Anonymous peer-review reports, and
  • The deadline for submitting the revision.

Authors must submit a detailed Revision and Response Report in which they respond separately to every comment made by the reviewers and editors. The location of each change in the revised manuscript must be specified. If a recommendation has not been implemented, a scientific justification must be provided.

Minor revisions may be checked by the editor. Manuscripts undergoing major revision are, whenever possible, returned to the reviewers who conducted the initial evaluation. If the original reviewers are unable to continue the evaluation, new reviewers may be appointed.

A revision decision does not mean that the manuscript will be accepted. Following re-evaluation, the revised manuscript may be accepted, subjected to further revision, or rejected.

1. Evaluation Timeframes

The Journal’s target evaluation timeframes are as follows:

Preliminary technical check: 7 days
Editorial screening: 14 days
Response to reviewer invitation: 7 days
Initial peer review: 30 days
Time allowed for minor revision: 15 days
Time allowed for major revision: 30 days
Re-evaluation of the revised manuscript: 21 days
Post-acceptance publication preparation: According to the issue in which the article is scheduled for publication

These are target timeframes and do not constitute guaranteed evaluation periods. The process may take longer where difficulties arise in securing suitable reviewers or where extensive methodological or ethical review is required.

The corresponding author will be informed if a significant delay occurs. Authors have the right to request information from the editorial office regarding the status of the evaluation process and, where necessary, to withdraw their manuscript.

1. Editorial Decisions

Following editorial evaluation, one of the following decisions may be issued:

• Rejection during editorial screening
  • Send for peer review
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision and re-evaluation
  • Accept
  • Reject

An acceptance decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor after the peer-review and editorial evaluation processes have been completed.

Acceptance of a manuscript must not be conditional upon:

• Payment of any fee,
  • The author’s institutional affiliation or academic title,
  • The author’s relationship with the editors,
  • The author having previously published in the Journal, or
  • Citation of particular articles or studies published in the Journal.

Manuscript submission and editorial processing fees are administered separately from the scientific evaluation process and editorial decisions. Payment of a fee does not guarantee that the manuscript will be sent for peer review, accepted, or published.

1. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors and Board Members

The Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, Field Editors, members of the Editorial Board, and individuals closely associated with the Journal owner or publisher may submit manuscripts to the Journal. Such manuscripts, however, are subject to an independent and transparent evaluation process.

For these submissions:

• The individual concerned may not participate in any editorial stage of the manuscript.
  • The individual may not select the reviewers or learn their identities.
  • The individual may not have unauthorized access to the manuscript records or peer-review reports.
  • The process is managed by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors.
  • The manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.
  • The final decision is made by an authorized editor who has no conflict of interest in the process.
  • The published article includes a statement concerning the independent evaluation process.

1. Withdrawal of Manuscripts by Authors

Authors may withdraw their manuscripts by submitting a written request that explains the reasons for withdrawal and has been approved by all authors.

The withdrawal request must include the manuscript code, manuscript title, reason for withdrawal, and confirmation from all authors. The editorial office records the request, evaluates any authorship or ethical disputes, and notifies the corresponding author in writing when the withdrawal has been completed.

A manuscript may not be submitted to another journal until its withdrawal from the Journal of Business Research–Turk has been formally completed in writing. Any financial consequences arising from withdrawal are governed by the Journal’s Manuscript Submission and Editorial Processing Fee Policy.

Where serious ethical misconduct or research misconduct is suspected, a withdrawal request does not prevent the Journal from investigating the allegation or notifying the relevant institutions where necessary.

1. Editorial Independence

The Journal owner and publisher may not interfere with reviewer selection, peer-review reports, scientific evaluation, or decisions concerning the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts.

Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief and authorized editors on the basis of scientific and ethical criteria. The Journal’s funding model, fees charged to authors, advertisements, sponsorships, or other revenue sources may not influence editorial decisions.

1. Transparency of the Process

The following dates are displayed in every published research article:

• Date received
  • Revision date or dates
  • Date accepted
  • Date of online publication

The DOI, Creative Commons license, copyright holder, and corresponding author information are clearly stated in the full text of every article.

Copyright in articles published by the Journal remains with the authors. Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.

Where a significant change is made to the Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation Policy, both the effective date of the change and the date on which the policy was updated are published on the Journal’s website.

1. Basis of the Policy

This policy has been prepared with reference to the following international principles and guidelines:

• Directory of Open Access Journals – Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/
  • Directory of Open Access Journals – Guide to Applying: https://doaj.org/apply/guide/
  • Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE: https://publicationethics.org/
  • Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Date of last policy update: August 2026