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

In the Journal of Organizational Behavior Review, articles are evaluated by at least two reviewers under the direction of the journal editor. All evaluations are conducted following the principles of confidentiality, so reviewers and authors cannot know each other's identities. In the next stage, editors review the article and evaluate whether it is suitable to be sent to referees regarding scope, originality, and contribution to the literature. If the editor finds the article unsuitable, they can reject it at this stage. The authors will be informed about this within two weeks. If the editor finds the article suitable, they determine at least two reviewers related to the article's subject and ensure that the article is sent to these reviewers for evaluation.

The evaluation of articles by reviewers is based on the following questions:

How original is the article's problematic?
How new and exciting is what the article says?
To what extent does the article contribute to the existing body of knowledge in the field?
To what extent does the article address issues of management and organization (especially organizational behavior)?

How strong is the theoretical basis of the article?
If the article consists of an empirical study, how appropriate are the methods chosen and the analyses used?
To what extent are the results of the study reported accurately?
To what extent are the results discussed concerning the existing literature?

Once the reviewers' evaluations are completed, the editor evaluates the article based on the reviewers' opinions and suggestions and makes his/her decision. When the reviewers' opinions and suggestions contradict each other, the editor may take the initiative to send the article to a new reviewer or may personally evaluate which of the reviewers' opinions and suggestions is more reasonable in terms of originality and contribution to the literature and may make additional suggestions. The article evaluation process is initially expected to be completed within 60 days.

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.

• 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 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) 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.