After the studies sent to Research Journal of Public Finance for publication are not uploaded to the journal system, the first preliminary evaluation is made by the journal editor within 3 working days and sent to the field editors if deemed appropriate.
As a result of the preliminary evaluation, the referee assignment process is completed within 5 working days to be evaluated by the referee. For the studies submitted to Research Journal of Public Finance for publication, referee suggestions can be made by the editors, authors and referees who have not previously evaluated the submitted study.
It is done by at least two referees working in different institutions, within the framework of the principle of double-blind refereeing, in order to evaluate the studies submitted for publication to Research Journal of Public Finance.
In the process of determining the referee for the evaluation of the studies, the editor and field editors were authorized. Referee evaluation forms prepared on scientific ethical principles are presented to experts in the field who are referees in our journal. It is expected that the referees will make an evaluation in accordance with the submitted referee evaluation forms.
In the selection of referees, it is first investigated whether there are people who are experts in the field who have worked directly or indirectly on the subject of the study. Referees from academia and business world can be determined. In the process of determining the referee, it is important to have at least one person who has done at least one study, directly or indirectly, in the previous periods regarding the main criterion study.
It is requested from the study referees that the evaluation process of the studies for which referee appointments are made, be completed within 14 -21 working days. If the evaluation of the work cannot be completed due to unexpected circumstances within the first evaluation period given to the referees, an additional evaluation period of up to 5 working days may be requested from the editor with justification.
After the initial evaluations made by the referees, as a result of the corrections made by the authors, the referees of the relevant study are given the opportunity to re-evaluate and control after the corrections, if they request it.
At the end of the referee evaluation process,
1. If both referees accept the study, the study is accepted for publication.
2. If an acceptance is a minor as a result of the referees' evaluation, a minor revision is requested and sent to both referees for review after correction.
3. If a minor, a major revision, or a major revision by both referees is given as a result of the peer review, it is sent to the author(s) as a major revision.
4. In case of rejection by any referee as a result of the referee evaluation, an independent third referee is appointed. As a result of the evaluation made by the third referee, the guidelines expressed in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are followed. In the final stage, acceptance for publication as a result of the third referee's evaluation depends on the decision of the editorial board.
5. In case of rejection by both referees, the study is not suitable for publication with the decision of the editorial board and is rejected in writing.
Regarding the revisions made as a result of the referee evaluation, the authors are responsible for uploading the revision files they have made to the journal system. If the referees want a revision as a result of the evaluations they made after the revision, the author is informed by the editor. The author has the right to apply to the editor with evidence of abuse against the second revision request made by the referee.
Objections to revision requests are made only to the editor. The evaluation of the objection is made primarily by the editor. In the meetings held by the editorial board at the final meeting and decision stage, the situation is evaluated and decisions are taken against the objections of the authors according to the majority of votes.