Manuscripts submitted to Ege Academic Review (EAB) undergo a four-stage evaluation process.

1. Preliminary Evaluation: Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes a technical preliminary check by the journal secretariat in the first stage. At this stage, files are checked to ensure completeness, and compliance with formatting rules, anonymization status, the presence of mandatory declarations, and the similarity report are verified. In the event of missing documents, incorrect file uploads, the inclusion of author information in the anonymous file, similarity rates that do not comply with journal policy, or failure to submit mandatory declarations, the manuscript is returned to the author without entering scientific evaluation. The preliminary check is not an assessment of the manuscript's scientific quality; this stage solely covers the verification of whether the submission files comply with journal policies.

2. Editorial Board Evaluation: Manuscripts that pass the technical preliminary check are forwarded to the editorial board. The editorial board assesses not only the formal compliance of the manuscript but also its potential to contribute to the academic profile, international visibility, and publication priorities of Ege Academic Review. At this stage, the manuscript's original contribution, methodological adequacy, relationship with the literature, theoretical depth, potential to appeal to an international audience, and alignment with the scope of the journal are taken into consideration. Manuscripts that pass the preliminary evaluation and the editorial board evaluation are forwarded to the relevant editors to be included in the peer-review process. Manuscripts that can be rejected by the editorial board without being sent to editors for peer review include:

• Studies falling outside the aims and scope of the journal
• Studies with limited original contribution
• Studies carrying serious methodological deficiencies
• Studies remaining merely at a descriptive level and offering no contribution to the literature debate
• Studies with missing ethics committee approval, conflict of interest, or mandatory declarations
• Studies failing to meet the academic and language standards of the journal

3. Peer Review: Manuscripts deemed appropriate by the editorial board are subjected to a double-blind peer-review process by the editors.An article evaluation fee is required from the author(s) for manuscripts that are taken into the peer-review process. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept mutually confidential. Manuscripts are sent to at least two reviewers who are experts in their fields. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's originality, contribution to the literature, methodological adequacy, validity of the findings, quality of discussion, and compliance with journal standards. Reviewers conduct their evaluations frameworked by the following basic criteria:

• Original contribution of the manuscript
• Clarity of the research question
• Relation to literature and the theoretical framework
• Methodological adequacy
• Clarity of findings and support with evidence
• Contribution of the discussion and conclusions to the literature
• Ethical compliance
• Potential to appeal to an international audience
• Quality of language and academic expression

Depending on the nature of the peer-review process and the scope of revisions, the editor may redirect the manuscript to reviewers for a second or third round of evaluation if deemed necessary. Furthermore, in addition to reviewer evaluations, the editor or editorial board may request additional revisions from the authors in line with their own editorial assessments.

4. Editorial Decision: A final decision regarding the manuscript is made in line with the reviewer reports and the evaluation of the relevant editor. The decision may be in the form of acceptance, revision, or rejection. While reviewer reports are decisive in the decision process, the final decision rests with the editors and the editorial board. Editorial decision options can be defined as follows:

• Desk Reject: The manuscript has not been found suitable for peer review in terms of scope, originality, methodology, ethics, or formatting.
• Rejection After Peer Review: It has been decided that the manuscript is not suitable for publication based on reviewer reports and/or editorial evaluation.
• Major Revision: Although the manuscript shows potential, it requires extensive theoretical, methodological, or structural corrections.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript has been found generally acceptable, and limited corrections are requested.
• Acceptance: The manuscript has been accepted for publication.
• Withdrawn: The manuscript has been withdrawn from the process at the request of the author.

Post-Acceptance Process

 Accepted manuscripts enter a final pre-publication check process. At this stage, checks are carried out regarding content integrity, formal compliance, reference formatting, table and figure quality, ethical and contribution declarations, language, and typesetting. Authors may only make technical, typographical, and meaning-preserving corrections during the proofreading stage. Comprehensive content changes cannot be made after acceptance. Authors are obliged to make the necessary final corrections.

The post-acceptance publication process at EAB is carried out in a manner linked to the journal's publication workflow and online visibility. The titles of manuscripts whose typesetting is completed are listed on the journal homepage under the "Accepted Articles" (or Articles in Press) tab. The specific issue in which the manuscript will be published is determined by the editorial board in accordance with the journal's publication schedule.