Initial submission consists of 2 steps. As a first step, all submissions will be checked by iThenticate software. Articles with a similarity rate of more than 20% are rejected. In the second step, submissions are screened for completeness and adherence to the Instructions for Authors. Those that pass are then assigned to the Editor in Chief for consideration for sending for peer review. Authors of manuscripts rejected at initial evaluation stage will normally be informed within 1 week of receipt.

When assigned a new submission, the Editor in Chief will decide if it warrants peer review or if it should be rejected without review. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are not sufficiently original, have serious conceptual and/or methodological flaws, have poor grammar or English/Turkish language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within 10 days of assignment to the editor in chief.

Feedback is provided by the Editor in Chief for all manuscripts rejected without review and, where possible, suggestions are made on other suitable publication outlets.

Those manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are passed to at least 2 expert referees for review.

Erciyes Akademi Institute employs double-blind peer review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity.

Besides the obvious need to remove names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript, there are other steps that need to be taken to ensure the manuscript is correctly prepared for double-blind peer review. To assist with this process the key items that need to be observed are as follows:

Use the third person to refer to work the Authors have previously undertaken, e.g. replace any phrases like “as we have discussed before” with “… has been discussed before [Anonymous, 2007]” .

Cite papers published by the Author in the text as follows: ‘[Anonymous, 2007]’. For blinding in the reference list: ‘[Anonymous 2007] Details omitted for double-blind reviewing.’

Make sure figures and tables do not contain any affiliation related identifier Do not eliminate essential self-references or other references but limit self-references only to papers that are relevant for those reviewing the submitted paper.

Remove references to funding sources

Do not include acknowledgments

Remove any identifying information, including author names, from file names and ensure document properties are also anonymized.

Reviewers are randomly matched to the paper according to their expertise, and our referee database is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for reviewers from authors, even though these recommendations may or may not be used.

organization

originality and significance of contribution

potential interest to a wide spectrum of social scientists and/or practitioners

interest to wide readership

interest to social scientists and/or practitioners

coverage of appropriate existing literature

adequacy of methodology, analysis and interpretation

clear, concise and jargon-free writing style

Reviewers are asked to provide anonymous comments to the author and are also given the option of providing confidential comments to the editor. The comments to the author are also made available to other reviewers of the manuscript.

Please note that language correction is not part of the peer review process but referees are encouraged to suggest corrections of language and style to the manuscript.

Typically, the manuscript will be reviewed within 2 months. If the reviewers’ reports contradict one another or a report is unduly delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. If necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the initial reviewers, usually within 1 month. Reviewers and the Chief Editor may request more than one revision of a manuscript, and alternative reviewers may also be invited to review the manuscript at any time.

The Chief Editor is responsible for the decision to reject or recommend the manuscript for publication. This decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees.

We recognize that peer reviewers play an integral role in journal publication. Reviewers invest a huge amount of their time and knowledge in the peer-review process. We create a certificate of recognition to serve as a formal acknowledgment of a reviewer’s role in the peer-review process of our journal. Reviewers can request the certificate from editorial board, through which they may be able to cite their work for the Journal as part of their professional development requirements for various professional societies and organizations.

If you are not currently a referee for our Journal but would like to be considered as a referee, please contact the editorial office at: erciyesakademi@erciyes.edu.tr