The World of Accounting Science

MBDD – The World of Accounting Science publishes papers in Turkish or English.

The editorial review process relies on the actions of both authors and the editorial board.

Authors are expected to submit original articles that fall within the journal’s scope and have not been published elsewhere. However, previous versions of the manuscript that have been part of a working paper series or presented at conferences without full paper proceedings do not prevent submission.Manuscripts must not have been published elsewhere and must not be submitted for publication in another journal while under consideration by the World of Accounting Science.Authors should not submit the same work or present essentially the same research in multiple journals.

All works submitted to the World of Accounting Science must be entirely original, and all sources and materials must be properly cited. Any instance of plagiarism will result in the rejection of the submitted manuscript. Additionally, they are required to disclose the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted tools in design and implementation of the research. Such use need to be disclosed within the methodology section of the manuscript. Use of AI does not preclude the manuscript from publication, rather provides a transparent picture of the research.

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts adhere to the journal’s writing style and formatting requirements. Additionally, they are required to disclose the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted tools in design and implementation of the research. Such use need to be disclosed within the methodology section of the manuscript. Use of AI does not preclude the manuscript from publication, rather provides a transparent picture of the research.

Editors are responsible for facilitating the review process, providing constructive feedback, and making timely decisions based on the rigor and contribution of the submitted research.

As of February 2022, MBDD revised and updated manuscript preparation and style requirements.A key requirement is that if the main text of the paper is in English, a Turkish extended abstract must be provided, and vice versa, along with abstracts in both Turkish and English. Assistance will be offered to non-Turkish speaker authors in producing the Turkish extended abstract.

Before submitting a manuscript, we advise you to review authorship definitions and ethics requirements (https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mbdd/policy) and (https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mbdd/page/9238 ) and format the requirements (https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/journal-file/25241) of the journal. Adherence to these rules will facilitate a quick return.

By submitting a manuscript for review, authors are assumed to have accepted these conditions as set forth by the editorial board.

Authors who wish to withdraw their submitted works due to delays or for any other reason must contact the editor.

The journal holds the copyright to all submitted manuscripts, and authors must sign a transfer of ownership as specified in the "Article Submission Checklist." There are no royalty payments to authors, and no submission fees are required for the journal.

The World of Accounting Science (MBDD) follows the  the guidelines and policies of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org)  In the following sections relevant detailed links are provided. 

Authorship Policy

MBDD follows the guidelines in COPE Authorship Guideline to ensure fair recognition of contributions to a research paper (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/discussion-document/authorship ). Authorship carries both credit and responsibility, and it is essential that all listed authors have made significant contributions to the research.

For multi-author studies, the Contributions of Authors must be declared after the conclusion and before the bibliography of the paper. The authors' initials and last names should be used to indicate which author contributed to which part of the manuscript. Details can be found by clicking the “Article Submission Checklist” button. The authors can acknowledge contributions that do not merit authorship.
The author(s) should disclose the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted tools in design and implementation of the research. Such use need to be disclosed within the methodology section of the manuscript. Use of AI does not preclude the manuscript from publication, rather provides a transparent picture of the research.

In cases of authorship disputes identified and raised during the review process, disputer should contact the Editor. The Editor then will take necessary measures to investigate the alleged dispute and contact the authors and dispute to determine the validity of the allegation and if the allegation has validity, rejects the paper.

Ethical authorship is guided by integrity, transparency, and adherence to established publication standards, such as those outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (https://publicationethics.org/search?query=ethical+authorship ). The main points are summarized below:

Criteria for Ethical Authorship
According to widely accepted guidelines, an author should meet all of the following criteria:
1. Substantial Contribution – The author must have significantly contributed to the conception, design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of the research.
2. Manuscript Drafting or Critical Revision – The author must have actively participated in drafting or revising the manuscript for intellectual content.
3. Approval of the Final Version – The author must have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript before submission.
4. Accountability – The author must agree to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the work, ensuring that all aspects are properly investigated and resolved.
Unethical Authorship Practices
To maintain academic integrity, the following unethical authorship practices must be avoided:
• Ghost Authorship – When a significant contributor is not credited as an author, often due to professional or institutional reasons.
• Gift (Honorary) Authorship – When an individual is listed as an author despite making little or no contribution to the research.
• Guest Authorship – When a well-known researcher’s name is added to a paper to increase its credibility, despite minimal involvement.
• Authorship Disputes – Issues arise when authorship order is misrepresented or when contributors are excluded unfairly.

Best Practices for Ethical Authorship
• Discuss Authorship Early – Research teams should determine authorship roles before beginning the study.
• Follow Institutional and Journal Guidelines – Adhere to the authorship policies set by academic institutions and publishers.
• Disclose Contributions – Clearly outline each author’s contributions using tools such as Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT).
• Acknowledge Non-Author Contributions – Individuals who contribute but do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged separately.
• Avoid Undisclosed Use of AI – If generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools were used in the research or manuscript preparation, their role should be fully disclosed.
By upholding ethical authorship standards, researchers ensure fair recognition, maintain scientific credibility, and contribute to the integrity of scholarly publishing.

MBDD follows a double-blind peer review policy. The review process relies on the voluntary participation of the scholarly community and requires all involved parties to act responsibly and ethically. Reviewers play a crucial role in this process and are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards. Their ethical obligations include avoiding bias, respecting intellectual property rights, and recognizing the contributions of others.
Reviewers must conduct their evaluations in an ethical and accountable manner. They are also encouraged to review the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (https://publicationethics.org/media/237/download?attachment).
The MBDD Editorial Board facilitates communication between the journal and reviewers to ensure a consistent, fair, and timely review process. Below are some key points from the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (https://publicationethics.org/media/237/download?attachment):
• Reviewers are required to treat all information regarding submitted manuscripts as privileged and strictly confidential.
• When evaluating submissions, reviewers and editors should focus solely on the intellectual and scientific content of the manuscript, avoiding any personal biases.
• Reviewers must maintain objectivity in their judgments.
• Reviewers should first accept the invitation to review and then complete the review within the allotted time. If additional time is needed, they may request an extension; however, the review should still be completed within a reasonable timeframe.
• Reviewers must promptly notify the managing editor of any suspected misconduct by the author(s), such as plagiarism or other unethical practices.

Ethical Guidelines for the Editorial Board:

MBDD follows the COPE Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office, enabling editors to develop their own codes of ethical conduct and implement best practices in publication ethics.
(https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethics-toolkit-successful-editorial-office )
Editors review processes to meet the needs of authors and readers, continuously updating publication policies and ethical practices to align with best practices and evolving publishing standards. In doing so, MBDD establishes and documents procedures across all publishing areas to ensure integrity and transparency.
The following are the main ethical criteria employed:
• Decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication will be based solely on the manuscript’s contribution, originality, clarity, and its alignment with the journal’s aims.
• Editors ensure the confidentiality of submitted works until publication, except in cases of suspected duplicate submission.
• Editors are committed to ensuring that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly and objectively.
• Editors shall not discriminate against any author based on race, religion, gender, age, ethnicity, political belief, sexual orientation, country of origin, or any other factor.
• Editors address conflicts of interest and retractions with the utmost discretion.

The World of Accounting Science expects the highest standards of research ethics from authors. Below are the key principles:
• Integrity, quality, and transparency must be upheld in research design, review, and execution.
• Data sources and processing methods should be clearly identified:
o Specify publicly available databases used (e.g., Datastream, Bloomberg, CRSP, Compustat, etc.).
o Describe how data were processed and analyzed (e.g., Excel, SPSS, STATA, etc.).
• If a reader, referee, or an Area Editor questions the accuracy or validity of the data, the Editor may contact the author(s) to request data verification.
• If primary data are used, the manuscript must provide detailed information on data collection—whether collected by the authors or third parties.
o For survey-based studies, the survey instrument should be included.
o In case of disputes, private data must be available for verification.
In accordance with ULAKBİM TR Index regulations, as of 2020, ethical approval is required for all research across scientific fields, including Social Sciences. Authors should check requirements when using survey instruments (https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mbdd/page/9238 ).
Ethical Considerations in Research
• Full disclosure: Research teams and participants must be informed about the study’s aim, methods, potential applications, requirements, and risks.
• Confidentiality: The identity and information of research participants must be protected. The study should be designed to ensure participants' autonomy and dignity.
• Voluntary participation: Participants must take part willingly, without coercion.
• Minimizing harm: The research must be planned to avoid any risk to participants.
• Informed consent:
o In experimental studies involving human subjects, written informed consent must be obtained.
o For children or individuals under guardianship, legal custodian consent is required.
• Institutional approval: If conducted within an institution, prior approval must be obtained.
• Ethical compliance: Studies involving human subjects must state in the methodology section that both informed consent from participants and ethics committee approval from the relevant institution were obtained.

The editorial review process relies on the actions of both authors and the editorial board.
Authors are expected to submit original articles that fall within the journal’s scope and have not been published elsewhere. However, previous versions of the manuscript that have been part of a working paper series or presented at conferences without full paper proceedings do not prevent submission.
Authors must ensure that their manuscripts adhere to the journal’s writing style and formatting requirements. Additionally, they are required to disclose the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted tools in design and implementation of the research. Such use need to be disclosed within the methodology section of the manuscript. Use of AI does not preclude the manuscript from publication, rather provides a transparent picture of the research.
Editors are responsible for facilitating the peer review process, providing constructive feedback, and making timely decisions based on the rigor and contribution of the submitted research

Review Process
The journal follows a double-blind review policy, which involves the following steps:
1. Initial Review: Submitted manuscripts undergo an editorial review to ensure proper formatting and alignment with the journal’s mission. If a manuscript is deemed unsuitable for further consideration or requires revisions, the editor notifies the corresponding author.
2. Formal Review: Manuscripts that pass the initial review are assigned to an area editor, who conducts an additional review. If necessary, the manuscript is returned to the authors for comments or improvements. Otherwise, the area editor sends a blind copy of the manuscript to two referees for formal evaluation.
3. Evaluation and Decision: The area editor reviews the referees’ comments and recommendations. If the two referees provide conflicting recommendations, a third referee (the adjudicator) is consulted. Based on the referees’ feedback, the area editor informs the author(s) of the decision—rejection, acceptance, major revision, or minor revision.
4. Revision and Resubmission: If revisions are requested, the revised manuscript must be resubmitted to the same reviewers. Authors should also provide a detailed response explaining how and where each reviewer’s comment has been addressed.
5. Final Decision: The review process continues until a final publication decision is reached. The editor who initiated the process reviews all decisions made by the area editor.

Appeals of Rejected Manuscripts
MBDD’s policy states that the Editor’s decision on a manuscript is final. Exceptions are made only if the decision resulted from a verifiable mistake or a violation of objectivity in the review process. Disagreements in judgment alone do not qualify as grounds for appeal.
Appeals must be directed to the current Editor(s), who will conduct an initial screening to determine whether the appeal is based on a genuine error or a breach of objectivity in the review process. If no such issue is identified, the appeal will be denied without further action.
If a mistake or violation is alleged, the Editor will appoint a Consulting Editor—a distinguished researcher with current or prior editorial experience at MBDD—to independently assess the appeal. The Consulting Editor will review all relevant documentation and may consult the original Area Editor and referees for additional insights.
After completing the review, the Consulting Editor will recommend either upholding or overturning the original decision. The Editor will consider this recommendation and make a final determination. If the appeal is denied, the case is closed. If granted, the Editor, in consultation with the Consulting Editor and original Area Editor, will issue a new decision letter to the authors, incorporating input from the appeal process.

Conflict of Interest Policy
MBDD is committed to ensuring the objective and fair handling of manuscripts. Therefore, the policy is to prevent Editors and referees from managing manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists or appears likely following COPE Conflict of Interest guidance (https://publicationethics.org/news-opinion/conflicts-interest) . In cases not specified below but when a concern is raised by an interested party (author(s), editors, referees, readers), COPE guidelines are consulted.
The authors need to download and fill out the “Author Conflict of Interest” form ( https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/journal-file/25543 ) when submitting a manuscript for review.
A conflict of interest is presumed when an Editor or reviewer:
1. Has a personal relationship with an author that could affect objectivity.
2. Is a faculty member in the same department as the author.
3. Chaired the author’s dissertation committee or was supervised by the author in a similar capacity.
4. Has co-authored a paper with the author.
5. Previously held editorial decision rights on an earlier version of the manuscript at another journal.
Editors and Area Editors have editorial decision rights for manuscripts they handle. If an Editor or Area Editor has a conflict of interest, either:
• A non-conflicted Editor will oversee the manuscript, or
• The Editor will assign a non-conflicted Area Editor to manage the review process.
The conflicted Editor will have no access to any information about the manuscript within the system.
Due to the double-blind review process, it is primarily the responsibility of Editors and Area Editors to identify conflicts of interest. However, if a reviewer suspects a potential conflict, they must immediately notify the Editor. If a conflict arises during the review process, the Editor will take the necessary steps to reassign the manuscript to a different Area Editor or reviewer.

Retraction Policy

MBDD’s published manuscript retraction policy follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines
(https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines ). An article may be retracted for reasons including, but not limited to:
• Major errors that affect the validity of findings.
• Data fabrication or falsification.
• Unethical research practices.
• Plagiarism.
Retraction notices, typically issued for a single article, clearly state the reasons and basis for retraction to help readers understand why the article is unreliable and how the issue was identified.
If the author(s) provide written consent, the notice may also include information on who initiated the retraction.

Correction Policy

Pursuant to the publication of a manuscript, the author(s) may identify a minor error or misstatement. Such an issue is not expected to affect the reliability, integrity, or conclusions of the research. In such cases, the author(s) should contact the Editor, providing details about the error and the necessary correction.
The Editor will then review the manuscript, assess the nature of the error, and determine whether it qualifies as a minor issue. If the error is deemed minor and does not impact the study's findings, an Erratum may be issued.
The Erratum serves as an official correction notice and is linked bidirectionally to the original article, ensuring transparency and maintaining the accuracy of the published record.

Expression of Concern Policy
Expressions of Concern issued by the editorial board are relatively new and rare.  COPE provides guidelines for determining when a manuscript should be retracted or when an Expression of Concern should be issued (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines).
Editors must exercise extreme caution when issuing an Expression of Concern to avoid making statements that may later prove invalid. The process must remain confidential, distinguishing between objective concerns (based on verifiable issues in the manuscript) and subjective concerns (based on interpretation). Subjective judgments would be unfair to the authors.
Reasons for Issuing an Expression of Concern
An Expression of Concern may be issued in cases involving:
• Inconclusive research evidence
• Data fabrication or misrepresentation
• Publication misconduct
• Plagiarism
• Duplicate publication of the same paper

Process for Issuing an Expression of Concern
MBDD authors or readers can alert the Editor to a potential issue. The Editor then reviews the manuscript and supporting documents to determine the validity of the concern. If necessary, the Editor convenes an independent panel of distinguished academics, who are informed of the allegations and instructed to maintain confidentiality and professionalism to protect the reputations of all parties involved.
After reviewing the panel’s report, the Editor makes a final decision on whether to issue an Expression of Concern. If issued, it will be linked to the original manuscript with a clear explanation of the reasons for concern.