All submitted studies for publication undergo "double-blind peer review" by at least two independent-external referees (With at least a Ph.D. degree in the relevant field), excluding the field editors and editorial board members. If one of the referees finds the paper appropriate for publication while the other does not, the Editorial Board examines the referee report and makes the final decision on whether to send the paper to a third referee or back to the author(s). Papers are only published if two referees find the paper suitable for publication.

This journal uses the Dergipark software to run all operations of the journal. The use of this software is free. The evaluation process steps are carried out per the text and flow chart below.

Model Evaluation Process Steps:

Step 1. The responsible author sends the article through the Dergipark system.
Step 2. The editor-in-Chief is assigned to the article on the Dergipark system.
Step 3. The Editor-in-Chief questions whether the article will be included in the evaluation process. If the article is not appropriate, proceed to Step 4. If the article is appropriate, go to Step 5.
Step 4. The article is returned to the author(s) with an Editor's Rejection or Revision Decision.
Step 5. The field editor is assigned.
Step 6. The field editor makes a preliminary examination of the article in terms of scientific quality, layout, and structure of the article. If the field editor does not find the paper suitable for evaluation, proceed to Step 7. If the paper is determined to be suitable, proceed to Step 9.
Step 7. Unsuitable articles are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief with the Field Editor's Rejection or Revision Request/Message.
Step 8. The Field Editor sends the article with the decision of Rejection, or Revision is returned to the Author by Editor-in-Chief.
Step 9. The field editor submits at least two Independent and External referees (Not editorial board members) as a suggestion to the Editor-in-Chief to take part in evaluating the article.
Step 10. The Editor-in-Chief appoints at least two independent and external referees, taking into account the submitted referee suggestions by the field editor. In cases where the referees need to be reduced or changed, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint a new referee.
Step 11. If the decision is rejected due to the referees' evaluation process (At least two referees' refusal), Step 12 is started. If a revision decision is made, Step 13 is taken. If the Acceptance Decision (Acceptance decision of all referees) is reached, Step 14 is taken.
Step 12. The rejection decision and the reasoning for this decision are forwarded to the author(s), and the article is returned.
Step 13. The revision decision is notified to the author by the Editor-in-chief, and after the author uploads the revised article to the system, Step 11 is taken again for the reviewing process of the revised version of the article.
Step 14. Language Editor is assigned to the article. If the language is not found appropriate, proceed to Step 15; if it is found appropriate, move on to Step 16.
Step 15. The article is sent to the author for proofreading, and after the corrections are made and uploaded to the system, we proceed to Step 14 and repeat the process in that step.
Step 16. The layout editor is assigned to the article, and if Layout corrections are not found appropriate, we proceed to Step 17; otherwise, if the Layout editor finds the article appropriate, we move on to Step 18.
Step 17. The article is sent to the author for layout corrections, and after the corrections are made and uploaded to the system, we proceed to Step 16 and repeat the process in that step.
Step 18. The assignment of the article to the issue/volume is completed.

Izmir Journal of Economics Article Evaluation Process Flow Chart