Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

A Fuzzy TOPSIS Based Decision-Making Model for the Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility Projects

Year 2025, Volume: 21 Issue: 2, 84 - 98, 16.12.2025

Beyza Betül Arslan , Birgül Erbaş , Aytaç Yildiz

Abstract

Abstract: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a concept that has gained increasing importance in recent years and represents individuals and organizations that conduct their activities with awareness of their social, cultural, economic, and environmental responsibilities. Organizations undertake various projects to provide social benefits, but the cost-benefit balance of these projects must be evaluated to ensure the efficient use of limited resources. Because this process involves a complex decision-making problem involving numerous criteria and uncertainties, multi-criteria decision-making methods that can model uncertainties more realistically contribute significantly to the process.
In this study, the fuzzy TOPSIS method was used to evaluate CSR projects planned for implementation by a district municipality. Based on a literature review and expert opinions, a decision model was created by identifying ten evaluation criteria and seven alternative projects encompassing the economic, social, environmental, and governance dimensions of CSR. The results indicated that a project aimed at strengthening women's roles in social and economic life through women's cooperatives was prioritized. However, a project based on accessibility but weak sustainability and stakeholder engagement was ranked last. These results highlight the importance of considering social contribution, economic development, and sustainable development goals in the evaluation of CSR projects.

Keywords

Social responsibility corporate social responsibility projects sustainability decision making fuzzy TOPSIS

References

  • [1] B. Başar and M. Başar, “Social responsibility reporting and its situation in Turkey, Social Responsibility Reporting: The Case of Turkey,” Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 2, 2021.
  • [2] Ö. Demir, “‘Non‐governmental organizations’, ‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘corporate social responsibility’ and ‘social business’,” Journal of Academic Social Research, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 347–356, 2014.
  • [3] A. V. Wirba, “Corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of government in promoting CSR,” Journal of the Knowledge Economy, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 7428–7454, 2024.
  • [4] O. Licandro, J. L. Vázquez-Burguete, L. Ortigueira, and P. Correa, “Definition of corporate social responsibility as a management philosophy oriented towards the management of externalities: Proposal and argumentation,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 13, p. 10722, 2023.
  • [5] M. Khalilzadeh and K. Salehi, “A multi‐objective fuzzy project selection problem considering social responsibility and risk,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 121, pp. 646–655, 2017.
  • [6] W.-H. Tsai, J.-L. Hsu, C.-H. Chen, W.-R. Lin, and S.-P. Chen, “An integrated approach for selecting corporate social responsibility programs and costs evaluation in the international tourist hotel,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 385–396, 2010.
  • [7] S. A. Hernandez, P. P. Mauricio, and M. L. Vazquez, “Neutrosophic TOPSIS for prioritization social responsibility projects,” International Journal of Neutrosophic Science, vol. 19, no. 1, 2022.
  • [8] T. Sattayapanich, P. Janmaimool, and J. Chontanawat, “Factors affecting community participation in environmental corporate social responsibility projects: Evidence from mangrove forest management project,” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 209, 2022.
  • [9] L. Matsutani et al., “Critical analysis of corporate social responsibility projects developed by Brazilian companies: Providing new insights for debates,” Cleaner Engineering and Technology, vol. 7, p. 100412, 2022.
  • [10] J. Lu et al., “Assessment of corporate social responsibility by addressing sustainable development goals,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 686–703, 2021.
  • [11] I. Jovanović, A. Stojanović, and N. Milijić, “Influence of corporate social responsibility on intangible benefits in the project‐based companies,” in Proc. 5th IPMA SENET Project Management Conf., 2019, pp. 112–120.
  • [12] L. Lv, L. Fan, B. Meng, M. Z. Abedin, & H. Feng, “A combined evaluation method of corporate social responsibility based on the difference and similarity: a case study of transportation industry in China,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 5561, 2023.
  • [13] M. Kasradze, M. Kamali Saraji, and D. Streimikiene, “Challenges to corporate social responsibility adoption for sustainability: A picture fuzzy approach,” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1254–1275, 2023.
  • [14] M. Al‐Marri, A. H. Pinnington, M. Karatas‐Ozkan, and K. Nicolopoulou, “The corporate management social responsibility through projects: A more economically developed country perspective,” Business Strategy & Development, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 358–371, 2019.
  • [15] Z. Hatunoğlu, M. Satır, and M. Yaşar, “Evaluation of corporate social responsibility performance of participation banks: Application with ENTROPY and TOPSIS methods,” Selçuk Univ. J. Social Sciences Institute, no. 41, pp. 348–364, 2019.
  • [16] M. Kırkıl and G. Boran, “Evaluation of social responsibility projects within the scope of Kotler and Lee’s six social initiatives,” MBS Journal of Corporate Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 45–62, 2024.
  • [17] M. Biter, “An evaluation of social responsibility projects in the context of the social state,” Dicle Univ. J. Social Sciences Institute, no. 85685, 2024.
  • [18] F. Azak Sungur, Evaluation of corporate social responsibility projects of pharmaceutical companies operating in Turkey, Ph.D. dissertation, Hacettepe Univ., 2021.
  • [19] M. Can, Evaluation of corporate social responsibility projects in hotel chains, M.S. thesis, Afyon Kocatepe Univ., 2013.
  • [20] A. Büyükşalvarcı, M. Şapçılar, and S. Uyaroğlu, “Evaluation of corporate hotels and social responsibility projects,” Selçuk University Open Access, 2016.
  • [21] D. Özbay, Corporate social responsibility index: A model proposal, Ph.D. dissertation, Istanbul Univ., 2013.
  • [22] X. Yang, H. Wang, and Q. Zhang, “Evaluation of social major responsibility in municipal road infrastructure: Case study of Zhengzhou 107 Auxiliary Road project,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 369, 2022.
  • [23] M. Chipriyanov, “Researching the corporate social responsibility impact on economic growth and inequality: Methodological aspects,” Journal of Global Economics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 77–94, 2024.
  • [24] N. Scelles, S. Morrow, and A. Gallo, “Social impact assessment of corporate social responsibility initiatives: Evaluating the social return on investment of an inclusion offer,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 321–339, 2024.
  • [25] A. Stojanović, M. Petrović, and T. Stanišić, “The multi‐criteria corporate analysis social responsibility: A comparative study of Russia, Bulgaria and Serbia,” Journal of Management and Organization, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 418–433, 2021.
  • [26] E. Aydoğdu, E. Güner, B. Aldemir, and H. Aygün, “Complex spherical fuzzy TOPSIS based on entropy,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 215, p. 119331, 2023.
  • [27] Z. B. Kurt and A. Yıldız, “A fuzzy TOPSIS-based decision model for the evaluation and prioritization of R&D/innovation projects,” Electronic Letters on Science and Engineering, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 93–107, 2020.
  • [28] P. Bhatia and N. Diaz‐Elsayed, “Facilitating decision‐making for the smart adoption manufacturing technologies by SMEs via fuzzy TOPSIS,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 257, p. 108762, 2023.
  • [29] A. Yıldız and Y. Demir, “Selection of the most suitable factory location for turkey’s domestic automobile using the fuzzy TOPSIS method,” Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1427–1445, 2019.
  • [30] Y. A. Solangi, C. Longsheng, and S. A. A. Shah, “Assessing and overcoming the renewable energy barriers for sustainable development in Pakistan: An integrated AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach,” Renewable Energy, vol. 173, pp. 209–222, 2021.
  • [31] M. Hajiaghaei-Keshteli et al., “Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS method for green supplier selection in the food industry,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 224, p. 120036, 2023.
  • [32] F. M. Abdullah, A. M. Al-Ahmari, and S. Anwar, “An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy TOPSIS method for analyzing smart manufacturing technologies,” Processes, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 906, 2023.
  • [33] Chen, C. T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy sets and systems, 114(1), 1-9.

Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Projelerinin Değerlendirilmesine Yönelik Bulanık TOPSIS Tabanlı Karar Verme Modeli

Year 2025, Volume: 21 Issue: 2, 84 - 98, 16.12.2025

Beyza Betül Arslan , Birgül Erbaş , Aytaç Yildiz

Abstract

Özet: Kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk (KSS), son yıllarda giderek önem kazanan ve faaliyetlerini sosyal, kültürel, ekonomik ve çevresel sorumluluklarının bilincinde olarak yürüten birey ve kurumları temsil eden bir kavramdır. Kurumlar, toplumsal fayda sağlamak amacıyla çeşitli projeler yürütürler, ancak sınırlı kaynakların verimli kullanılmasını sağlamak için bu projelerin maliyet-fayda dengesinin değerlendirilmesi gerekir. Çok sayıda kriter ve belirsizliği içeren bu süreç karmaşık bir karar alma problemi olduğundan, belirsizlikleri daha gerçekçi bir şekilde modelleyebilen çok kriterli karar alma yöntemleri sürece önemli katkı sağlar.
Bu çalışmada, bir ilçe belediyesi tarafından uygulanması planlanan KSS projelerini değerlendirmek için bulanık TOPSIS yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Literatür taraması ve uzman görüşlerine dayanarak, KSS'nin ekonomik, sosyal, çevresel ve yönetişim boyutlarını kapsayan on değerlendirme kriteri ve yedi alternatif proje belirlenerek bir karar modeli oluşturulmuştur. Sonuçlara göre, kadın kooperatifleri aracılığıyla kadınların sosyal ve ekonomik yaşamdaki rollerini güçlendirmeyi amaçlayan bir projeye öncelik verilmiştir. Ancak, erişilebilirliğe dayalı ancak sürdürülebilirliği ve paydaş katılımı zayıf bir proje son sırada yer almıştır. Bu sonuçlar, KSS projelerinin değerlendirilmesinde toplumsal katkı, ekonomik kalkınma ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerinin dikkate alınmasının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

Sosyal sorumluluk kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk projeleri sürdürülebilirlik karar verme bulanık TOPSIS

References

  • [1] B. Başar and M. Başar, “Social responsibility reporting and its situation in Turkey, Social Responsibility Reporting: The Case of Turkey,” Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 2, 2021.
  • [2] Ö. Demir, “‘Non‐governmental organizations’, ‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘corporate social responsibility’ and ‘social business’,” Journal of Academic Social Research, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 347–356, 2014.
  • [3] A. V. Wirba, “Corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of government in promoting CSR,” Journal of the Knowledge Economy, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 7428–7454, 2024.
  • [4] O. Licandro, J. L. Vázquez-Burguete, L. Ortigueira, and P. Correa, “Definition of corporate social responsibility as a management philosophy oriented towards the management of externalities: Proposal and argumentation,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 13, p. 10722, 2023.
  • [5] M. Khalilzadeh and K. Salehi, “A multi‐objective fuzzy project selection problem considering social responsibility and risk,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 121, pp. 646–655, 2017.
  • [6] W.-H. Tsai, J.-L. Hsu, C.-H. Chen, W.-R. Lin, and S.-P. Chen, “An integrated approach for selecting corporate social responsibility programs and costs evaluation in the international tourist hotel,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 385–396, 2010.
  • [7] S. A. Hernandez, P. P. Mauricio, and M. L. Vazquez, “Neutrosophic TOPSIS for prioritization social responsibility projects,” International Journal of Neutrosophic Science, vol. 19, no. 1, 2022.
  • [8] T. Sattayapanich, P. Janmaimool, and J. Chontanawat, “Factors affecting community participation in environmental corporate social responsibility projects: Evidence from mangrove forest management project,” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 209, 2022.
  • [9] L. Matsutani et al., “Critical analysis of corporate social responsibility projects developed by Brazilian companies: Providing new insights for debates,” Cleaner Engineering and Technology, vol. 7, p. 100412, 2022.
  • [10] J. Lu et al., “Assessment of corporate social responsibility by addressing sustainable development goals,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 686–703, 2021.
  • [11] I. Jovanović, A. Stojanović, and N. Milijić, “Influence of corporate social responsibility on intangible benefits in the project‐based companies,” in Proc. 5th IPMA SENET Project Management Conf., 2019, pp. 112–120.
  • [12] L. Lv, L. Fan, B. Meng, M. Z. Abedin, & H. Feng, “A combined evaluation method of corporate social responsibility based on the difference and similarity: a case study of transportation industry in China,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 5561, 2023.
  • [13] M. Kasradze, M. Kamali Saraji, and D. Streimikiene, “Challenges to corporate social responsibility adoption for sustainability: A picture fuzzy approach,” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1254–1275, 2023.
  • [14] M. Al‐Marri, A. H. Pinnington, M. Karatas‐Ozkan, and K. Nicolopoulou, “The corporate management social responsibility through projects: A more economically developed country perspective,” Business Strategy & Development, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 358–371, 2019.
  • [15] Z. Hatunoğlu, M. Satır, and M. Yaşar, “Evaluation of corporate social responsibility performance of participation banks: Application with ENTROPY and TOPSIS methods,” Selçuk Univ. J. Social Sciences Institute, no. 41, pp. 348–364, 2019.
  • [16] M. Kırkıl and G. Boran, “Evaluation of social responsibility projects within the scope of Kotler and Lee’s six social initiatives,” MBS Journal of Corporate Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 45–62, 2024.
  • [17] M. Biter, “An evaluation of social responsibility projects in the context of the social state,” Dicle Univ. J. Social Sciences Institute, no. 85685, 2024.
  • [18] F. Azak Sungur, Evaluation of corporate social responsibility projects of pharmaceutical companies operating in Turkey, Ph.D. dissertation, Hacettepe Univ., 2021.
  • [19] M. Can, Evaluation of corporate social responsibility projects in hotel chains, M.S. thesis, Afyon Kocatepe Univ., 2013.
  • [20] A. Büyükşalvarcı, M. Şapçılar, and S. Uyaroğlu, “Evaluation of corporate hotels and social responsibility projects,” Selçuk University Open Access, 2016.
  • [21] D. Özbay, Corporate social responsibility index: A model proposal, Ph.D. dissertation, Istanbul Univ., 2013.
  • [22] X. Yang, H. Wang, and Q. Zhang, “Evaluation of social major responsibility in municipal road infrastructure: Case study of Zhengzhou 107 Auxiliary Road project,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 369, 2022.
  • [23] M. Chipriyanov, “Researching the corporate social responsibility impact on economic growth and inequality: Methodological aspects,” Journal of Global Economics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 77–94, 2024.
  • [24] N. Scelles, S. Morrow, and A. Gallo, “Social impact assessment of corporate social responsibility initiatives: Evaluating the social return on investment of an inclusion offer,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 321–339, 2024.
  • [25] A. Stojanović, M. Petrović, and T. Stanišić, “The multi‐criteria corporate analysis social responsibility: A comparative study of Russia, Bulgaria and Serbia,” Journal of Management and Organization, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 418–433, 2021.
  • [26] E. Aydoğdu, E. Güner, B. Aldemir, and H. Aygün, “Complex spherical fuzzy TOPSIS based on entropy,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 215, p. 119331, 2023.
  • [27] Z. B. Kurt and A. Yıldız, “A fuzzy TOPSIS-based decision model for the evaluation and prioritization of R&D/innovation projects,” Electronic Letters on Science and Engineering, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 93–107, 2020.
  • [28] P. Bhatia and N. Diaz‐Elsayed, “Facilitating decision‐making for the smart adoption manufacturing technologies by SMEs via fuzzy TOPSIS,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 257, p. 108762, 2023.
  • [29] A. Yıldız and Y. Demir, “Selection of the most suitable factory location for turkey’s domestic automobile using the fuzzy TOPSIS method,” Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1427–1445, 2019.
  • [30] Y. A. Solangi, C. Longsheng, and S. A. A. Shah, “Assessing and overcoming the renewable energy barriers for sustainable development in Pakistan: An integrated AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach,” Renewable Energy, vol. 173, pp. 209–222, 2021.
  • [31] M. Hajiaghaei-Keshteli et al., “Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS method for green supplier selection in the food industry,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 224, p. 120036, 2023.
  • [32] F. M. Abdullah, A. M. Al-Ahmari, and S. Anwar, “An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy TOPSIS method for analyzing smart manufacturing technologies,” Processes, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 906, 2023.
  • [33] Chen, C. T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy sets and systems, 114(1), 1-9.
There are 33 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Theory of Computation (Other)
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Beyza Betül Arslan 0009-0000-2282-4842

Birgül Erbaş 0009-0009-5235-6272

Aytaç Yildiz 0000-0002-0729-633X

Submission Date November 3, 2025
Acceptance Date November 24, 2025
Early Pub Date December 16, 2025
Publication Date December 16, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Volume: 21 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Arslan, B. B., Erbaş, B., & Yildiz, A. (2025). A Fuzzy TOPSIS Based Decision-Making Model for the Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility Projects. Electronic Letters on Science and Engineering, 21(2), 84-98.

Aim & Scope

The International Journal "Electronic Letters on Science&Engineering"(e-LSE) reportrs the original research in science and engineering at a high level in electronic form. The scope of e-LSE spans the whole range of science and engineering. The e-LSE includes interdisciplinary topics in a variety of application fields. Electronically published since 2005, e-LSE provides rapid publication of topical research into the integration of science and engineering techniques.

The International Journal "Electronic Letters on Science&Engineering"(e-LSE) reportrs the original research in science and engineering at a high level in electronic form. The scope of e-LSE spans the whole range of science and engineering. The e-LSE includes interdisciplinary topics in a variety of application fields. Electronically published since 2005, e-LSE provides rapid publication of topical research into the integration of science and engineering techniques.

Ethics in Publishing

e-LSE pays attention to ethics in publishing in all levels. All articles submitted to the journal should be prepared by considering the internationally recognized ethical guildelines. Author(s) can get more information on publishing ethics from Committee on Publication Ethichs (COPE) website (https://publicationethics.org).


All submitted manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using iThenticate plagiarism detection system. Manuscripts with a high similarity rate will not be considered for review and publication.

17912
Templates

Template of the manuscript can be downloaded from the following link:

Manuscript Template (.docx)

Copyright form of the manuscript can be downloaded from the following link:

Copyright Form


Preparation of Manuscript
a) Author(s) should use these specific styles for each part (for example title, abstract, keyword etc.) of the manuscript. The detailed information about these styles can be found in the template file.

b) Author(s) should provide both Turkish and English versions of the title, abstract and keywords.

c) The full name(s) of the author(s) should be given. In addition the e-mail address(es), affiliation(s), and ORCID's of all author’s should be provided. The telephone number of the corresponding author should be written.

d) The citations should be given in IEEE Style. Authors can get help from citation management applications/tools when preparing their papers. The title of the citations section should be “References”. In text citations should be writeen in square brackets like [1], [3-5] etc.

Ethical Principles

Electronics Letters on Science and Engineering (e-LSE) pays attention to ethics in publishing in all levels. All articles submitted to the journal should be prepared by considering the internationally recognized ethical guidelines. Author(s) can get more information on publishing ethics from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website (https://publicationethics.org). To attestation the unity of the published papers, e-LSE editors are handled for using COPE’s flowcharts on condition that they suspect an ethical matter about the paper they process.

Authors are boosted to submit novel and high quality works that have not been accepted or published by other journals. It is encouraged the best standards of publication ethics and it is taken all possible precaution against publication carelessness. It is important to acknowledge on standards of appropriate ethical behavior for all parties related in the act of publishing: authors, editors, reviewers and the publisher. The journal publisher takes its tasks of custody over the all stages of publishing seriously and recognize ethical and other engagements.

All submitted manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using iThenticate plagiarism detection system. Manuscripts with a high similarity rate will not be considered for review and publication.
The authors, reviewers and editors of the journal are expected to strictly committed to ensuring the policy of publication ethics and malpractice, and observance to the following statements:

Authors' Responsibilities

e-LSE is a peer-reviewed journal, and authors are obliged to participate in our single-blind peer review process. Unethical publishing behaviors such as plagiarism and self-plagiarism (There are many forms of plagiarism like copying or substantially paraphrasing any other work, and claiming results from papers published by others.) are unacceptable for in the e-LSE. All forms of plagiarism are intolerable and the work will be rejected during evaluation process*. At least corresponding author have to sign and attach "e-LSE Copyright Form" while submission process.
Each submitted work will be pre-reviewed by a member of "Editorial Assistants - Secretary" for their formal body, formatting in consistency with the "Author Guidelines", including in mind correspondence to the journal sections and topics, etc. When a paper is prepared in a proper way the article will be sent to the section editor for single blind peer reviewing by at least two independent reviewers. The peer reviewing of the work is mandatory and authors must admit this rule.

At least two reviewers comments and recommendations will be sent to the author(s) Following the the review process completion by the section editor. During the revision process, the author is required to submit the files containing the tracked changes, the final clean version of the manuscript and responses to the comments of the reviewers. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to assurance that the work has been confirmed by all the other authors.

Co-authors should have remarkable support in the work. Any other persons who have been attended in a project and/or a research as a collaborators should be listed as contributors in the acknowledgement.

When the author detects a major error or mistake in the submitted work or previously published paper, he/she is obliged to promptly notify the editor or publisher. After this stage, the author should either withdraw the paper or try to edit the paper in cooperation with the publisher / editor. Three different corrections can be made in e-LSE. These are erratum, addendum, corrigendum note. If the editor or publisher determines the work published contains significant errors by a third party, the author must either correct the article quickly or prove the accuracy of the article and provide evidence. If the author does not fulfill this obligation, the article will be withdrawn.

Before submitting any work to the e-LSE the authors must ensure that;

i)   the work is his/her/their own original work and does not infringe the copyright or other rights,
ii)  the work or any version with minor revision of it has not previously been published or submitted for publication elsewhere,
iii) the work must not be under evaluation for any other publication as it is being evaluated by the e-LSE,
iv) all the data in the work is high scientific and technical standard,
v)  potential conflicts of interest should be remarked at the earliest stage possible (should be written to the editor note in the submission stage),
vi) if the work is about clinical and experimental studies on human or animal subjects, it should be attached an ethical report (Ethics Committee Approval) while submission. this approval must be stated in the work and documented.
vii)In studies requiring ethics committee permission, information about the permit (name of the board, date and number) should be included in the method section as well as on the first / last page of the article.

Reviewers' Responsibilities

Following a manuscript submission, one of the members of the e-LSE Editorial Board determines appropriate reviewers according to subject of the manuscript. e-LSE reviewer pool, DergiPark User Pool or new reviewer invitation are the source of the potential reviewers. Before the review process, works are checked for plagiarism using iThenticate by the Editorial Assistants. Works could be rejected after plagiarism process. Invited reviewers are free to accept or decline the invitation. If the reviewer accepts invitation, however he/she understands that he/she has not insufficient knowledge about the subject, should inform the Section Editor and cancel the process. e-LSE review process is single blind and done by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in their fields. Generally, the review invitation of the third reviewer depends on if the two reviewers’ decision are quite different. After reviewer accepts invitation, it is expected to return his/her response using "e-LSE Reviewer Recommendation and Comments" form within 21 days. The review decision could be one of them: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject and Resubmit, Reject. Next, decision of the review is informed to the author(s).

All manuscripts are confidential and should not be shared with any other people in any way.

Reviewers should reconsider the work, write their reports and make their decisions in an objective way. The opinions about the work should be presented unbiased and based on scientific values. Personal preferences about the work and personal thoughts about the author(s) should not affect the decision process. Reviewers should not make personal criticism of the author(s). Reviewers should express their opinions evidently with associated arguments. A review should evaluate works for their scholarly content, regardless of folk, gender, religious, ethnic provenance, nationality, or political idea of the authors.

Reviewers’ research must not reveal the unpublished materials without permission from the author(s) in his/her research. Private information or ideas should be kept confidential during the review process and should not be used for personal benefits. If the reviewer has a conflict of interest, connection or association with the author(s), institution or company that conducted the study, he/she should not accept the evaluation and report this to the Section Editor. Since the process is single blind, reviews are not allowed to contact the author(s) directly. If the reviewer needs additional information or additional materials about the work, he/she may request it by notifying the Section Editor.

Decision of the finished review process are informed to the corresponding author(s).

Editors' Responsibilities

Following the pre-review phase, the manuscript is sent to Editor-In-Chief for evaluation. Editor-In-Chief assigns a Section Editor. The Section Editor determines at least two reviewers whose study interest is related with the manuscript and sends the article for evaluation. Generally, the review invitation of the third reviewer depends on if the two reviewers’ decision are quite different. After the reviewers' submission of their evaluations, the Section Editor can decide “Accept”, “Minor Revision”, “Major Revision”, “Reject and Resubmit” or “Reject " according to the comments. After a revision request, the author is required to submit the files: the manuscript file which shows (highlights) changes made (usually known as track changes), the manuscript file in final clean version (which the changes made are accepted), and responses to the comments of the reviewers. After the author(s)' response to the revision request the Section Editor sends the uploaded files to reviewers again. The Section Editor has the right to change previous reviewers or the number of the reviewers. A revision can be requested from the author at most 2 times and otherwise the article is rejected. The Section Editor reports the result of the last evaluation to the Editor-In-Chief.

Copyright infringement and plagiarism are two important issues in the editorial process. In case of occurrence or violation of these situations, the Editors inform the Editor-In-Chief. In these processes, Editor-In-Chief manages legal obligations and compliance/non-compliance with “Copyright and Consent Form”.

The selection of editors and reviewers should be unbiased and based on merit. An editor should evaluate works for their scholarly content, regardless of folk, gender, religious, ethnic provenance, nationality, or political idea of the authors. Editor and any official of the journal should not share any information in the submitted work with anyone other than the authors, reviewers and the publisher during the evaluation process. In case the work is rejected, this information is found as confidential information and should not be shared. Information about the unpublished work must not be used in editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Similarly, editors and any official are prohibited from keeping this information confidential and using it for personal benefits. The editors should pay special care to provide a healthy communication throughout evaluation process. If the edit has a conflict of interest, connection or association with the author(s), institution or company that conducted the work, he/she should not accept the editorial process and report this to the Editor-In-Chief. Thus, Editor-In-Chief has to assign a new editor to work.

An editor who provides evidence of erroneous results, plagiarism, duplication or major error in the published article, is obliged to report corrections, retractions or similar situations as a subject of erratum, addendum, corrigendum note to the Editor-In-Chief.

The editor should take reasonable precautions when ethical complaints arise in the submitted/published work. Within the scope of these measures, the author of the work will be asked to respond to complaints and claims. The editor can contact institutions other than authors.

Publication Policy

The e-LSE is a peer reviewed international scientific journal which has an open access policy. The first round of peer review is 30 days average; and the second round is 20 days average.

Publication Process

1. The manuscript is sent with the copyright form in its first submission. Journal secretaries check that the manuscript meets the journal style and spelling rules. Then, the similarity rate is checked in the plagiarism program and if necessary, correction is requested by contacting the author.

2. After the pre-review phase, the manuscript is sent to Editor-In-Chief for evaluation. Editor-In-Chief assigns a Section Editor. The Section Editor determines at least two reviewers whose study interest is related with the manuscript and sends the article for evaluation. Type of peer review is single-blind. The reviewers submit their evaluations via the "e-LSE Reviewer Recommendation and Comments" form. The Section Editor can decide "Accept", "Revision" or "Reject" according to the comments. During the revision process, the author is required to submit the files containing the tracked changes, the final clean version of the manuscript and responses to the comments of the reviewers. The Section Editor sends the files from the author to the reviewers again. The Section Editor has the right to change reviewers or increase their number. A revision can be requested from the author at most 3 times and otherwise the article is rejected. The Section Editor reports the result of the evaluation to the Editor-In-Chief.

3. The Editor-In-Chief makes the final decision, taking into account the Section Editor's suggestion, the comments of the reviewers and the authors' responses.

4. In the case of acceptance, the article is checked for spelling and language control for the last time. At this stage, if necessary, the author is contacted. After these processes, the article is ready for publication and added to the first issue to be published.

* Evaluation process describes the whole process of the work from submission to final decision or publication.

The publication, reading and downloading of articles is free of charge, no fee is charged for any transaction. Likewise, no fee is charged for the peer-review process.

Citation Indexes

ResearchBib

Other Indexes

ResearchBib
Index Copernicus

Founding Editor

Default avatar
Feyzullah TEMURTAŞ
Artificial Intelligence (Other), Deep Learning

Editorial Board

Mustafa Böyükata
Mustafa BÖYÜKATA
Nanotechnology, Mathematical Sciences, Physical Chemistry, Physical Sciences
Halit Öztekin
Halit ÖZTEKİN
Information and Computing Sciences, Digital Processor Architectures, Embedded Systems

Section Editor Board

A F M Suaib Akhter
A F M Suaib AKHTER
Database Systems, Concurrent/Parallel Systems and Technologies, Networking and Communications, Information Security Management
Ekin Ekinci
Ekin EKİNCİ
Information and Computing Sciences, Natural Language Processing, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence
İsmail Koçak
İsmail KOÇAK
Geological Sciences and Engineering (Other), Mineralogy- Petrography, Mineral Stratum and Geochemistry
Özlem Orhan
Özlem ORHAN
Applied Mathematics
Uğur Temiz
Uğur TEMİZ
Structural Geology and Tectonics, General Geology
Default avatar
Hasan ULUTAŞ
Image Processing, Machine Learning Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence (Other)
Mustafa Yaz
Mustafa YAZ
Electrical Engineering, Circuits and Systems, Electronics, Power Electronics, Control Theoryand Applications, Mechatronics Engineering, Renewable Energy Resources
Default avatar
Hasan ŞAHİN
Hasan Şahin is an Assistant Professor at Bursa Technical University, Department of Industrial Engineering. He worked at Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University between 2019-2020, between 2002-2019 Kütahya Dumlupınar University. He received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from Kütahya Dumlupınar University Industrial Engineering Department and his Ph.D. degree from Sakarya University, Department of Industrial Engineering in 2018. His research interests are supply chain, information technologies.
Manufacturing and Service Systems, Industrial Engineering, Multiple Criteria Decision Making