PRE-CHECK OF ARTICLES

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are first subjected to a review process by the Preliminary Review Editors. At this stage;

• Whether the necessary permissions have been obtained,

• Whether the ethics committee approval and ethical principles have been adhered to,

• Whether the in-text citations and bibliography comply with the APA 7 system,

• Whether the article submission fee has been paid,

• Whether the article complies with the journal's writing guidelines and scope.

Articles with deficiencies detected during the preliminary control process are returned to the responsible author and the deficiencies are requested to be corrected.

Articles that complete the pre-review process are submitted to the Editor/Assistant Editors. At this stage, some manuscripts may be rejected outright, without being considered for peer review, for the following reasons:

• If the study's contribution to the literature is deemed insufficient,

• If the study is deemed insufficient in terms of originality,

• If it contains significant scientific, methodological, or formal deficiencies,

• If the subject and/or scope of the article is incompatible with the journal's publishing areas.

In case of rejection by the Editor or Assistant Editors for the above reasons, the submission fee will not be refunded.

BASIC ISSUES REGARDING THE PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

A double-blind peer-review system is used in the evaluation of articles submitted to the ERU Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences. In this system, the review process is conducted without direct or indirect knowledge of each other by the author(s) and the reviewer(s). During the peer-review process, referee recommendations are not received from the author(s).

Blind peer review plays a critical role in academic publishing to ensure that research is evaluated objectively, fairly, and impartially. This process, in which the identities of author(s) and reviewer(s) are concealed, minimizes potential bias and ensures that evaluations of scientific studies are based solely on academic criteria. This ensures that reviewers' evaluations are not influenced by personal, institutional, or geographical factors and focus solely on the scientific merit of the study. Furthermore, blind peer review enhances the quality of scientific publishing by rigorously examining the methodological consistency of studies, the reliability of data analysis, and the academic contribution of the findings. This method promotes adherence to scientific ethics and contributes to maintaining a reliable and impartial evaluation system within the academic community.

The following principles apply in peer-reviewed journals:

• Article evaluation is carried out using a double-blind review system, where the author(s) and referee(s) are not known to anyone.

• Editorial Board Members, Editors, Associate Editors, and Field Editors may not serve as referees for articles during their tenure at the journal. However, they may be consulted regarding whether an article in their area of expertise should be considered for peer review.

• In order to contribute to the journal as a referee, it is necessary to have at least a doctorate degree.

• Referees will not be appointed from the same institution as the author(s) of the study. Geographical and institutional diversity will be taken into account when appointing referees.

• The first step for a submitted article is to invite a third referee. For the article to be published, it is essential that at least two referees are "publishable." If there are discrepancies between the referee reports, additional referees are appointed.

• Peer review reports that do not contain any opinion, suggestion, and/or criticism regarding the content of the manuscript—such as unconditional acceptance or unconditional rejection—are not taken into consideration in the decision-making process and are not shared with the author.

• Reviewer reports that indicate minor revision will not be resent to the reviewer after revision unless the reviewer explicitly states that they would like to see the manuscript again; whereas reviewer reports that indicate major revision will be resent to the reviewer after revision unless the reviewer explicitly states that there is no need to see the manuscript again.

• If revisions are requested from the author, the corrections made must be marked in a different color (for convenience, Word's "track changes" option can be used). Otherwise, reviewers will not be able to detect the changes made in the manuscript. Authors may also optionally upload a response file to the reviewer.

• As long as the review process of the article continues, no information belonging to the author(s) should be directly included in the files uploaded to the system; nor should it be indicated indirectly, such as the study being derived from a thesis or presented at a conference. Such information will only be added after the article has been accepted, during the layout stage.

• All communication and file sharing with authors and reviewers is carried out through the Dergipark system.

---

FINAL ASSESMENT

Manuscripts that receive positive recommendations from reviewers at the end of the peer-review process are accepted for publication. In cases where reviewer reports are conflicting and/or the manuscript is deemed unsuitable for publication based on reviewer feedback, the final decision is made by the Editorial Board. The decision of the Editorial Board is communicated to the author(s) by the Field Editor.

The manuscript processing times are as follows:

Maximum time for preliminary checks of the manuscript   : 5 days

Response time to reviewer invitation                                        : 5 days

Review period granted to reviewers                                          : 21 days

Additional review time upon reviewer request                       : 14 days

Time granted to authors for minor revisions                           : 14 days

Time granted to authors for major revisions                           : 21 days