Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

MESLEKİ TECRÜBE VE KİŞİLİK ÖZELLİKLERİNİN YATIRIM DAVRANIŞI ÜZERİNE ETKİSİ: AKADEMİSYENLER ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Year 2020, Issue: 1 - 19th International Business Congress Special Issue, 451 - 475, 25.12.2020

Uğur Sevim , Alper Karavardar

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.846577

Abstract

Yatırım davranışlarını etkileyen faktörler, çok boyutluluk arz etmekte olup yatırım sürecinin anlaşılabilmesi bakımından önemlidir. Bu kapsamda finansal uzmanların ayrı bir yeri olduğu söylenebilir. Zira genel olarak, finansal uzmanların aldıkları eğitim, deneyim, bilgiye erişim imkanı ve analiz yeteneği gibi avantajları olduğu ve dolayısıyla sıradan yatırımcılara kıyasla daha başarılı yatırım kararları aldıkları kabul edilmektedir. Bütün bunların yanında finansal uzmanlar da insandırlar ve karar alma süreçleri psikolojinin etkisi altındadırlar. Üniversitelerde muhasebe-finans alanında çalışmakta olan akademisyenler, fon yöneticileri, yatırım uzmanları, analistler gibi toplum açısından finansal uzmanlar olarak görülürler. Bu noktadan hareketle, bu çalışmada Türkiye’de muhasebe-finansman alanında çalışmakta olan akademisyenlerin yatırım davranışları araştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda, genel olarak mesleki tecrübe ve kişilik özelliklerinin farklı açılardan akademisyenlerin yatırım davranışları üzerinde etkili olduğu ortaya koyulmuştur.

Keywords

Yatırım Davranışı Akademisyenler Finansal Uzmanlık

References

  • Ahern, K., Duchin, R. ve Shumway, T. (2014). Peer effect in risk aversion and trust, Review of Financial Studies 27 (11), 3213-3240.
  • Albayrak, A. S. (2016). Lojistik Regresyon Analizi. Şeref KALAYCI (ed.). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri içinde (s. 273-298). Ankara, Türkiye: Asil Yayın.
  • Alevy, J., Haigh, M. ve List, J. (2007). Information cascades: Evidence from a field experiment with financial market professionals, Journal of Finance, 62 (1), 151-180.
  • Barberis, N., Huang, M. ve Santos, T. (2001). Prospect theory and asset prices, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (1), 1-53.
  • Barnea, A., Cronqvist, H. ve Siegel, S. (2010). Nature or nurture: what determines investor behavior? Journal of Financial Economics, 98, 583-604.
  • Bateman, H., Eckert, C. Geweke, J. Louviere, J. Satchell, S. ve Thorp, S. (2015). Risk presentation and portfolio choice, Review of Finance, 20 (1), 201-229.
  • Bell, D. E. (1995). Risk, return, and utility. Management Science 41 (1), 23-30.
  • Bodnaruk, A. ve Simonov, A. (2015). Do financial experts make better investment decisions?. Journal of financial Intermediation, 24(4), 514-536.
  • Bontempo, R. N., Bottom, W. P., ve Weber, E. U. (1997). Cross‐cultural differences in risk perception: A model‐based approach. Risk analysis, 17(4), 479-488.
  • Brooks, P. ve Zank, H. (2005). Loss averse behavior, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 31(3), 301–325.
  • Burns, P. (1985). Experience in decision making: A comparison of students and businessmen in a simulated progressive auction, in V. L. Smith, (Ed.), Research in Experimental Economics. JAI Press, Greenwich.
  • Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. Johannesson, M. Lichtenstein, P. ve Wallace, B. (2009). Genetic variation in preferences for giving and risk taking, Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (2), 809-842.
  • Cesarini, D., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., Sandwell, O. ve Wallace, B. (2010), Genetic variation in financial decision-making, Journal of Finance, 65 (5), 1725-1754.
  • Cesarini, D., Johannesson, M., Magnusson, P. K. ve Wallace, B., (2012), The behavioral genetics of behavioral anomalies. Management Science, 58, 21-34. Cipriani, M., ve Guarino, A. (2009). Herd behavior in financial markets: an experiment with financial market professionals. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(1), 206-233.
  • Cohn, A., Fehr, E., ve Maréchal, M. A. (2014). Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature, 516(7529), 86-89.
  • Cronqvist, H., Siegel, S., ve Yu, F. (2015). Value versus growth investing: Why do different investors have different styles?. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(2), 333-349.
  • Cronqvist, H. ve Siegel, S., (2014). The genetics of investment biases. Journal of Financial Economics, 113, 215-234.
  • Diecidue, E. ve Van De Ven, J. (2008). Aspiration level, probability of success and failure, and expected utility. International Economic Review, 49(2), 683-700.
  • Dillenberger, D. ve Rozen, K. (2015), History-dependent risk attitude, Journal of Economic Theory, 157, 445-477.
  • Fessler, D., Pillsworth, E. ve Flamson, T. (2004), Angry men and disgusted women: An evolutionary approach to the influence of emotions on risk taking, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95 (1), 107-123.
  • Ghysels, E., Santa-Clara, P. ve Valkanov, R. (2005). There is a risk-return trade-off after all. Journal of Financial Economics, 76(3), 509-548.
  • Gloede, O., ve Menkhoff, L. (2014). Financial professionals' overconfidence: is it experience, function, or attitude?. European Financial Management, 20(2), 236-269.
  • Gordon, S. ve St-Amour, P. (2000). A preference regime model of bull and bear markets, American Economic Review 90 (4), 1019-1033.
  • Grable, J. E. (2008). Risk Tolerance (pp. 1-20). Advances in Consumer Financial Behavior Research. New York: Springer.
  • Guiso, L., Sapienza, P. ve Zingales, L. (2013). Time varying risk aversion, unpublished working paper, EIEF and CEPR, Northwestern University, University of Chicago and NBER.
  • Jianakoplos, N. ve Bernasek, A. (1998). Are women more risk averse? Economic Inquiry, 36 (4): 620–630.
  • Jordan, J., Sivanathan, N. ve Galinsky, A. (2011), Something to lose and nothing to gain the role of stress in the interactive effect of power and stability on risk taking, Administrative Science Quarterly, 56 (4), 530-558.
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Kalaycı, Ş. (2016). Faktör Analizi. Şeref KALAYCI (ed.). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri içinde (s. 321-331). Ankara, Türkiye: Asil Yayın.
  • Kaustia, M. ve Perttula, M. (2012). Overconfidence and debiasing in the financial industry, Review of Behavioral Finance, 4(1), 46-62.
  • Kaustia, M.ve Knupfer, S. (2008). Do investors overweight personal experience? Evidence from IPO subscriptions, Journal of Finance, 63, 2679-2702.
  • Kaustia, M., Alho, E., ve Puttonen, V. (2008). How much does expertise reduce behavioral biases? The case of anchoring effects in stock return estimates. Financial Management, 37(3), 391-412.
  • Kayış, A. (2016). Güvenilirlik Analizi. Şeref KALAYCI (ed.). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri içinde (s. 404-419). Ankara, Türkiye: Asil Yayın.
  • Keller, L. R., Sarin, R. K., ve Weber, M. (1986). Empirical investigation of some properties of the perceived riskiness of gambles, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(1), 114-130.
  • Kiymaz, H., Öztürkkal, B., ve Akkemik, K. A. (2016). Behavioral biases of finance professionals: Turkish evidence, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 12, 101-111.
  • Klos, A., Weber, E. U. ve Weber, M. (2005). Investment decisions and time horizon: Risk perception and risk behavior in repeated gambles, Management Science, 51(12), 1777-1790.
  • Kuo, H. C., Wang, L. H., ve Yeh, L. J. (2018). The role of education of directors in influencing firm R&D investment, Asia Pacific Management Review, 23(2), 108-120.
  • Lerner, J., Gonzalez, R., Small, D. ve Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism a national field experiment, Psychological Science, 14 (2), 144-150.
  • Levy, H., ve Levy, M. (2009). The safety first expected utility model: Experimental evidence and economic implications. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33(8), 1494-1506.
  • Liu, N., Bredin, D., ve Cao, H. (2020). The investment behavior of Qualified Foreign Institutional Investors in Chin, Journal of Multinational Financial Management, (54), 1-15.
  • Locke, P. ve Mann, S. (2005). Professional trader discipline and trade disposition, Journal of Financial Economics, 76 (2), 401-444.
  • MacCrimmon, K. ve Wehrung, D. (1990), Characteristics of risk taking executives, Management Science, 36 (4), 422-435.
  • Malmendier, U. ve Nagel, S. (2016). Learning from inflation experiences, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131 (1), 53-87.
  • Malmendier, U. ve Nagel, S. (2013). Learning from ination experiences, Unpublished working paper. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA .
  • Malmendier, U. ve Nagel, S. (2011). Depression babies: Do macroeconomic experiences affect risk-taking? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 373-416.
  • Moreno, K., Kida, T. ve Smith, J. (2002). The impact of affective reactions on risky decision making in accounting contexts, Journal of Accounting Research, 40 (5), 1331-1349.
  • Post, T., Pennings, J. ve Hoffmann, A. (2013). Individual investor perceptions and behavior during the financial crisis, Journal of Banking & Finance, 37 (1), 60-74.
  • Pruijssers, J., Singer, G., Singer, Z. ve Tsang, D. (2017). Social Influence Pressures and the Risk Perceptions of Aspiring Financial Market Professionals, Available at SSRN 2872339.
  • Puetz, A. ve Ruenzi, S. (2011). Overconfidence among professional investors: Evidence from mutual fund managers, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 38(5‐6), 684-712.
  • Robson, A. J. (2001). Why would nature give individuals utility functions? Journal of Political Economy, 109, 900-914.
  • Schoar, A. ve Zuo, L., (2013). Shaped by booms and busts: how the economy impacts CEO careers and management styles. Unpublished working paper. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA .
  • Subramaniam, V.A. ve Athiyaman, T. (2016). The effect of demographic factors on investor's risk tolerance, International Journal of Commerce and Management Research, 2(3), 136-142.
  • Unser, M. (2000). Lower partial moments as measures of perceived risk: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21(3), 253-280.
  • Veld, C., ve Veld-Merkoulova, Y. V. (2008). The risk perceptions of individual investors, Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(2), 226-252.
  • Weber, E. U., ve Hsee, C. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk, Management science, 44(9), 1205-1217.
  • Weber, E., Blais, A. ve Betz, N. (2002), A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behavior, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15 (4), 263-290.

THE EFFECT OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS ON INVESTMENT BEHAVIOR: A RESEARCH ON ACADEMICIANS

Year 2020, Issue: 1 - 19th International Business Congress Special Issue, 451 - 475, 25.12.2020

Uğur Sevim , Alper Karavardar

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.846577

Abstract

Factors affecting investment behaviors are multidimensional and they are important for understanding the investment process. In this context, it can be said that financial experts have a different place in terms of financial investments. Because, in general, it is accepted that financial experts have advantages such as education, experience, access to information and ability to analyze and therefore make more successful investment decisions compared to ordinary investors. Besides all these, financial experts are also human and decision-making processes are under the effect of psychology. Academicians, working in the field of accounting-finance at universities are seen as financial experts in terms of society, such as fund managers, investment experts, and analysts. From this point on, in this study the investment behavior of academicians that working in accounting and finance in Turkey has been investigated. As a result of the study, it has been revealed that in general, professional experience and personality characteristics have an effect on the investment behavior of academicians from different points of view.

Keywords

Investment Behavior Academics Financial Expertise

References

  • Ahern, K., Duchin, R. ve Shumway, T. (2014). Peer effect in risk aversion and trust, Review of Financial Studies 27 (11), 3213-3240.
  • Albayrak, A. S. (2016). Lojistik Regresyon Analizi. Şeref KALAYCI (ed.). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri içinde (s. 273-298). Ankara, Türkiye: Asil Yayın.
  • Alevy, J., Haigh, M. ve List, J. (2007). Information cascades: Evidence from a field experiment with financial market professionals, Journal of Finance, 62 (1), 151-180.
  • Barberis, N., Huang, M. ve Santos, T. (2001). Prospect theory and asset prices, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (1), 1-53.
  • Barnea, A., Cronqvist, H. ve Siegel, S. (2010). Nature or nurture: what determines investor behavior? Journal of Financial Economics, 98, 583-604.
  • Bateman, H., Eckert, C. Geweke, J. Louviere, J. Satchell, S. ve Thorp, S. (2015). Risk presentation and portfolio choice, Review of Finance, 20 (1), 201-229.
  • Bell, D. E. (1995). Risk, return, and utility. Management Science 41 (1), 23-30.
  • Bodnaruk, A. ve Simonov, A. (2015). Do financial experts make better investment decisions?. Journal of financial Intermediation, 24(4), 514-536.
  • Bontempo, R. N., Bottom, W. P., ve Weber, E. U. (1997). Cross‐cultural differences in risk perception: A model‐based approach. Risk analysis, 17(4), 479-488.
  • Brooks, P. ve Zank, H. (2005). Loss averse behavior, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 31(3), 301–325.
  • Burns, P. (1985). Experience in decision making: A comparison of students and businessmen in a simulated progressive auction, in V. L. Smith, (Ed.), Research in Experimental Economics. JAI Press, Greenwich.
  • Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. Johannesson, M. Lichtenstein, P. ve Wallace, B. (2009). Genetic variation in preferences for giving and risk taking, Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (2), 809-842.
  • Cesarini, D., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., Sandwell, O. ve Wallace, B. (2010), Genetic variation in financial decision-making, Journal of Finance, 65 (5), 1725-1754.
  • Cesarini, D., Johannesson, M., Magnusson, P. K. ve Wallace, B., (2012), The behavioral genetics of behavioral anomalies. Management Science, 58, 21-34. Cipriani, M., ve Guarino, A. (2009). Herd behavior in financial markets: an experiment with financial market professionals. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(1), 206-233.
  • Cohn, A., Fehr, E., ve Maréchal, M. A. (2014). Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature, 516(7529), 86-89.
  • Cronqvist, H., Siegel, S., ve Yu, F. (2015). Value versus growth investing: Why do different investors have different styles?. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(2), 333-349.
  • Cronqvist, H. ve Siegel, S., (2014). The genetics of investment biases. Journal of Financial Economics, 113, 215-234.
  • Diecidue, E. ve Van De Ven, J. (2008). Aspiration level, probability of success and failure, and expected utility. International Economic Review, 49(2), 683-700.
  • Dillenberger, D. ve Rozen, K. (2015), History-dependent risk attitude, Journal of Economic Theory, 157, 445-477.
  • Fessler, D., Pillsworth, E. ve Flamson, T. (2004), Angry men and disgusted women: An evolutionary approach to the influence of emotions on risk taking, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95 (1), 107-123.
  • Ghysels, E., Santa-Clara, P. ve Valkanov, R. (2005). There is a risk-return trade-off after all. Journal of Financial Economics, 76(3), 509-548.
  • Gloede, O., ve Menkhoff, L. (2014). Financial professionals' overconfidence: is it experience, function, or attitude?. European Financial Management, 20(2), 236-269.
  • Gordon, S. ve St-Amour, P. (2000). A preference regime model of bull and bear markets, American Economic Review 90 (4), 1019-1033.
  • Grable, J. E. (2008). Risk Tolerance (pp. 1-20). Advances in Consumer Financial Behavior Research. New York: Springer.
  • Guiso, L., Sapienza, P. ve Zingales, L. (2013). Time varying risk aversion, unpublished working paper, EIEF and CEPR, Northwestern University, University of Chicago and NBER.
  • Jianakoplos, N. ve Bernasek, A. (1998). Are women more risk averse? Economic Inquiry, 36 (4): 620–630.
  • Jordan, J., Sivanathan, N. ve Galinsky, A. (2011), Something to lose and nothing to gain the role of stress in the interactive effect of power and stability on risk taking, Administrative Science Quarterly, 56 (4), 530-558.
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Kalaycı, Ş. (2016). Faktör Analizi. Şeref KALAYCI (ed.). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri içinde (s. 321-331). Ankara, Türkiye: Asil Yayın.
  • Kaustia, M. ve Perttula, M. (2012). Overconfidence and debiasing in the financial industry, Review of Behavioral Finance, 4(1), 46-62.
  • Kaustia, M.ve Knupfer, S. (2008). Do investors overweight personal experience? Evidence from IPO subscriptions, Journal of Finance, 63, 2679-2702.
  • Kaustia, M., Alho, E., ve Puttonen, V. (2008). How much does expertise reduce behavioral biases? The case of anchoring effects in stock return estimates. Financial Management, 37(3), 391-412.
  • Kayış, A. (2016). Güvenilirlik Analizi. Şeref KALAYCI (ed.). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri içinde (s. 404-419). Ankara, Türkiye: Asil Yayın.
  • Keller, L. R., Sarin, R. K., ve Weber, M. (1986). Empirical investigation of some properties of the perceived riskiness of gambles, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(1), 114-130.
  • Kiymaz, H., Öztürkkal, B., ve Akkemik, K. A. (2016). Behavioral biases of finance professionals: Turkish evidence, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 12, 101-111.
  • Klos, A., Weber, E. U. ve Weber, M. (2005). Investment decisions and time horizon: Risk perception and risk behavior in repeated gambles, Management Science, 51(12), 1777-1790.
  • Kuo, H. C., Wang, L. H., ve Yeh, L. J. (2018). The role of education of directors in influencing firm R&D investment, Asia Pacific Management Review, 23(2), 108-120.
  • Lerner, J., Gonzalez, R., Small, D. ve Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism a national field experiment, Psychological Science, 14 (2), 144-150.
  • Levy, H., ve Levy, M. (2009). The safety first expected utility model: Experimental evidence and economic implications. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33(8), 1494-1506.
  • Liu, N., Bredin, D., ve Cao, H. (2020). The investment behavior of Qualified Foreign Institutional Investors in Chin, Journal of Multinational Financial Management, (54), 1-15.
  • Locke, P. ve Mann, S. (2005). Professional trader discipline and trade disposition, Journal of Financial Economics, 76 (2), 401-444.
  • MacCrimmon, K. ve Wehrung, D. (1990), Characteristics of risk taking executives, Management Science, 36 (4), 422-435.
  • Malmendier, U. ve Nagel, S. (2016). Learning from inflation experiences, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131 (1), 53-87.
  • Malmendier, U. ve Nagel, S. (2013). Learning from ination experiences, Unpublished working paper. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA .
  • Malmendier, U. ve Nagel, S. (2011). Depression babies: Do macroeconomic experiences affect risk-taking? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 373-416.
  • Moreno, K., Kida, T. ve Smith, J. (2002). The impact of affective reactions on risky decision making in accounting contexts, Journal of Accounting Research, 40 (5), 1331-1349.
  • Post, T., Pennings, J. ve Hoffmann, A. (2013). Individual investor perceptions and behavior during the financial crisis, Journal of Banking & Finance, 37 (1), 60-74.
  • Pruijssers, J., Singer, G., Singer, Z. ve Tsang, D. (2017). Social Influence Pressures and the Risk Perceptions of Aspiring Financial Market Professionals, Available at SSRN 2872339.
  • Puetz, A. ve Ruenzi, S. (2011). Overconfidence among professional investors: Evidence from mutual fund managers, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 38(5‐6), 684-712.
  • Robson, A. J. (2001). Why would nature give individuals utility functions? Journal of Political Economy, 109, 900-914.
  • Schoar, A. ve Zuo, L., (2013). Shaped by booms and busts: how the economy impacts CEO careers and management styles. Unpublished working paper. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA .
  • Subramaniam, V.A. ve Athiyaman, T. (2016). The effect of demographic factors on investor's risk tolerance, International Journal of Commerce and Management Research, 2(3), 136-142.
  • Unser, M. (2000). Lower partial moments as measures of perceived risk: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21(3), 253-280.
  • Veld, C., ve Veld-Merkoulova, Y. V. (2008). The risk perceptions of individual investors, Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(2), 226-252.
  • Weber, E. U., ve Hsee, C. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk, Management science, 44(9), 1205-1217.
  • Weber, E., Blais, A. ve Betz, N. (2002), A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behavior, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15 (4), 263-290.
There are 56 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Uğur Sevim

Alper Karavardar

Publication Date December 25, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Issue: 1 - 19th International Business Congress Special Issue

Cite

APA Sevim, U., & Karavardar, A. (2020). MESLEKİ TECRÜBE VE KİŞİLİK ÖZELLİKLERİNİN YATIRIM DAVRANIŞI ÜZERİNE ETKİSİ: AKADEMİSYENLER ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(1), 451-475. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.846577
 Download Cover Image

Ethical Principles and Ethical Guidelines

The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences places great emphasis on publication ethics, which serve as a foundation for the impartial and reputable advancement of scientific knowledge. In this context, the journal adopts a publishing approach aligned with the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to preventing potential malpractice. The following ethical responsibilities, established based on COPE’s principles, are expected to be upheld by all stakeholders involved in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors).

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
Make decisions on submissions based on the quality and originality of the work, its alignment with the journal's aims and scope, and the reviewers’ evaluations, regardless of the authors' religion, language, race, ethnicity, political views, or gender.
Respond to information requests from readers, authors, and reviewers regarding the publication and evaluation processes.
Conduct all processes without compromising ethical standards and intellectual property rights.
Support freedom of thought and protect human and animal rights.
Ensure the peer review process adheres to the principle of double-blind peer review.
Take full responsibility for accepting, rejecting, or requesting changes to a manuscript and ensure that conflicts of interest among stakeholders do not influence these decisions.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
Submitted works must be original. When utilizing other works, proper and complete citations and/or references must be provided.
A manuscript must not be under review by another journal simultaneously.
Individuals who have not contributed to the experimental design, implementation, data analysis, or interpretation should not be listed as authors.
If requested during the review process, datasets used in the manuscript must be provided to the editorial board.
If a significant error or mistake is discovered in the manuscript, the journal’s editorial office must be notified.
For studies requiring ethical committee approval, the relevant document must be submitted to the journal. Details regarding the ethical approval (name of the ethics committee, approval document number, and date) must be included in the manuscript.
Changes to authorship (e.g., adding or removing authors, altering the order of authors) cannot be proposed after the review process has commenced.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Accept review assignments only in areas where they have sufficient expertise.
Agree to review manuscripts in a timely and unbiased manner.
Ensure confidentiality of the reviewed manuscript and not disclose any information about it, during or after the review process, beyond what is already published.
Refrain from using information obtained during the review process for personal or third-party benefit.
Notify the journal editor if plagiarism or other ethical violations are suspected in the manuscript.
Conduct reviews objectively and avoid conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.
Use polite and constructive language during the review process and avoid personal comments.
Publication Policy
The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences is a free, open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal that has been in publication since 1981. The journal welcomes submissions in Turkish and English within the fields of economics, business administration, public finance, political science, public administration, and international relations.

No submission or publication fees are charged by the journal.
Every submitted manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review process and similarity/plagiarism checks via iThenticate.
Submissions must be original and not previously published, accepted for publication, or under review elsewhere.
Articles published in the journal can be cited under the Open Access Policy and Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is given.
The journal is published three times a year, in April, August, and December. It includes original, high-quality, and scientifically supported research articles and reviews in its listed fields. Academic studies unrelated to these disciplines or their theoretical and empirical foundations are not accepted. The journal's languages are Turkish and English.

Submissions are first subject to a preliminary review for format and content. Manuscripts not meeting the journal's standards are rejected by the editorial board. Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to the peer review stage.

Each submission is sent to at least two expert reviewers. If both reviews are favorable, the article is approved for publication. In cases where one review is positive and the other negative, the editorial board decides based on the reviews or may send the manuscript to a third reviewer.

Articles published in the journal are open access and can be cited under the Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is made.