JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR REVIEW
(JOB REVIEW)
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES & PUBLICATION POLICY
In accepting the studies submitted to the Journal of Organizational Behavior Review (JOB REVIEW) for publication, scientific studies' originality, importance, and impact elements are considered. For this reason, the decision of whether or not to publish studies that have been uploaded to the system via Dergipark and whose referee process has been reported positively depends on the approval of the editorial board. In addition, the Journal of Organizational Behavior Review (JOB REVIEW) does not charge any processing fees for scientific studies or subscription fees to access the scientific studies at any stage of the publication process.
SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION ETHICS
The Journal of Organizational Behavior Review (JOB REVIEW) adopts the ethical standards the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) sets. COPE advises editors and publishers on publication ethics, particularly indicating how to behave and what to do about research and publication misconduct. In this context, the Journal of Organizational Behavior Review (JOB REVIEW) follows all aspects of the publication ethics prepared by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
On the other hand, within the scope of TR Index 2020 criteria, starting from 2021, ETHICS COMMITTEE PERMISSION must be obtained for research articles, and information regarding the permission (board name, date, number, and no) must be stated as a footnote on the first page of the study and in the method section. In addition, ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL is not required for research articles for studies whose data were collected before 2020. However, in this case, detailed information must be provided in the method section of the study.
Scientific Studies That Requiring Ethics Committee Approval:
• Any research conducted with qualitative or quantitative approaches that require data collection from participants using surveys, interviews, focus group studies, observations, experiments, and other interview techniques.
• Use of humans and animals (including material/data) for experimental or other scientific purposes
• Clinical studies conducted on humans
• Studies conducted on animals
• Retrospective studies following the law on the protection of personal data
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Organizational Behavior Review (JOB Review) undergo a double-blind peer review process between authors and reviewers. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two external independent reviewers who are experts in their respective fields.
Submissions first go through a technical evaluation process. At this stage, it is checked whether the manuscript has been prepared in accordance with the journal’s guidelines. Submissions that do not comply with the journal’s rules are returned to the authors with requests for technical corrections.
Submissions that comply with the journal’s guidelines are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief evaluates each submission in terms of scope and quality. Submissions that are not suitable for the journal may be rejected or returned for revision.
For manuscripts deemed suitable for the journal, the Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the Editors, assigns reviewers. After assignment, the Editor may decide to reject the manuscript, proceed with the double-blind peer review process, or request revisions prior to peer review.
Editors submit their recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief based on the reports provided by the reviewers. Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the Editor, who may work again with the reviewers to form a new recommendation.
The Editor-in-Chief has the final authority in the decision-making process for all submissions.
In cases of delay, if authors inform the journal of the reason for the delay, they are given the option to withdraw their manuscript.
Once the peer review process is completed, authors will receive anonymous reviewer reports along with the editorial decision regarding their manuscript. Reviewer reports will not be disclosed publicly in any form. Submitted materials are considered confidential and must not be used in any way prior to publication. If there is suspicion that a reviewer has used an author’s ideas or data without permission, the Editorial Board will handle the matter in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines.
Reviewers are required to comply with COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which provide a framework to ensure the integrity and impartiality of the double-blind review process.
The Editorial Board follows COPE’s relevant flowcharts to minimize peer review manipulation. In cases of suspected manipulation after publication, the Editorial Board will again follow the appropriate COPE procedures.
Potential reviewers must inform the editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. It is important that editors are informed so they can make an informed decision about whether to include a potential reviewer in the review process. This helps ensure the integrity and transparency of the evaluation process.
Communication between editors and reviewers contains confidential information that must not be shared with third parties.
REVISION PROCESS
Authors of manuscripts requiring “minor revision” or “major revision” will receive a decision letter from the Editor-in-Chief. The decision letter will include the recommendations of reviewers and editors, as well as the deadline for submitting the revised and updated version of the manuscript.
When submitting a revised manuscript, authors must provide a detailed “Response to Reviewers” document indicating how each comment from each reviewer has been addressed, along with the specific line numbers where changes have been made. Each reviewer’s comment, the author’s response, and the corresponding revisions must be clearly presented. The main manuscript file should also include tracked changes.
Revised manuscripts must be submitted within the timeframe specified in the decision letter. If the revised version is not submitted within the given period, the option for revision may be withdrawn. If the corresponding author requires additional time, a request for extension must be made before the original deadline expires.
PLAGIARISM POLICY
The journal has a zero-tolerance policy regarding plagiarism.
The editor deals with plagiarism in two ways: peer review and plagiarism prevention software (e.g., ithenticate.com). All submissions to the journal are checked via iThenticate before they are sent for peer review.
Suppose plagiarism is detected at any stage of the submission - before or after acceptance, at any stage before publication - either by the reviewers or the editorial board. In that case, the editor may notify the author(s) and request that the submission be rewritten and/or appropriately cited. If plagiarism is widespread (e.g., more than 30% of the submission is plagiarized), the submission may be rejected, or the author(s)'s institution(s) may be notified. If plagiarism is detected after publication, this will be disclosed to the journal readership as an editorial note, and the author(s)'s institution(s) will be notified.
EDITOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES
• Editors evaluate incoming articles in terms of scientific content without considering the ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religious belief, or political philosophy of the author(s).
• Editors provide a fair double-blind peer-review process for the publication of submitted articles.
• Editors have the final decision to accept or reject an article for publication, taking into account the article's importance, originality, and clarity, as well as the validity of the study and its relevance to the scope of the journal.
• Editors should not allow any conflict of interest or competition between author(s), editors, and reviewers.
• Editors are obliged to take necessary action when they encounter a situation that does not comply with publication ethics or when they receive an accusation. This obligation also covers past issues.
If the Editorial Board determines that the editors do not fulfill the responsibilities listed above, the relevant editor/s will terminate their duties.
REVIEWERS' RESPONSIBILITIES
• Reviewers evaluate the incoming articles in terms of scientific content, regardless of the ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious belief, or political philosophy of the authors.
• Reviewers contribute to the editorial process by expressing their opinions to increase the scientific quality of the article and its publication. They fulfill their reviewing duties with the awareness that they contribute to the development of science.
• Reviewers should inform the editor as soon as possible of their decision on whether they can review or not about the relevant article.
• Reviewers should not have any conflict of interest or competition with the research, author(s) or sponsor(s).
• Reviewers should not use the information and/or ideas they obtain during the article evaluation for their own interests.
• Reviewers are obliged to keep all information regarding the submitted work confidential and to notify the editor when they become aware of any copyright infringement or plagiarism committed by the author(s).
• When reviewers believe that the content of a submitted study is incompatible with their scientific field or knowledge, or when a rapid evaluation cannot be made, they must inform the editor and ask for their forgiveness from the evaluation process.
If editors determine that the reviewers do not fulfill the responsibilities listed above, they will terminate the duties of the relevant reviewers and cancel their report(s).
AUTHOR(S)' RESPONSIBILITIES
• Author(s) must collect and interpret research data honestly, impartially and scientifically. They must use accurate and undistorted data in scientific research.
• Author(s) must declare that the work they submit has not been published or evaluated for publication anywhere else, in any language.
• Author(s) must comply with the applicable copyright agreements and laws determined within the scope of the journal.
• Author(s) should consider the reviewers' suggestions regarding the study with utmost care and make the requested corrections.
• Author(s) should be able to criticize reviewers' suggestions within the limits of courtesy.
• Author(s) should appropriately reference other authors, contributors, or sources and indicate relevant sources.
If editors determine that the author/authors have not fulfilled the responsibilities listed above, they will refrain from publishing the article at any stage; if this is determined after the article is published, a "Correction Notice" will be published in the first issue to be published.