ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

It is essential that all stakeholders act in accordance with the highest level of professional ethics and standards during the publication process of the journal. In this context, our journal GJEBS basically takes the principles of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) as a reference.
All stakeholders are expected to comply with the COPE principles and assume duties and responsibilities within this ethical framework. In this regard, some important elements are listed below.

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS
• Authors should beware of the ethical violations specified in the COPE principles and the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive, and must not commit any of the mentioned violations.
• Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work. The acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given properly and completely in the text and in the reference list. (The similarity rate of the articles to be sent to our journal should be below 20%.)
• The paper must not have been previously published elsewhere or in the process of being published. (The exceptions to this rule are (a) the papers presented at scientific meetings and published in proceedings and (b) translated publications, provided that it is clearly stated in the study.)
• Authors should provide explanations regarding the originality and authenticity of the data in the study.
• Authors should disclose any personal, commercial, academic, or financial interests that would make readers feel misled or deceived when revealed later.
• For studies with multiple authors, how the authors intellectually contribute to the text on issues such as ideas, design, analysis, and writing the manuscript is important in terms of preventing conflicts of interest. The authorship should be clarified before the publication process, and if necessary, shared with the editor.
• Ethics committee approval should be obtained for research that requires it, and this approval should be stated and documented in the article. In studies that involve third parties, especially the experiment, or that require research permission the informed consent form(s) should be included in the article and documented.
• Authors should pay attention to the confidentiality of communication with the editor until the publication process is completed.
• During the revision process, requests such as adding/removing authors or changing the author order are not permitted.


ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF PEER REVIEWERS
Peer reviewers should;
• only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out an assessment.
• inform the editor of the journal when they think that they are facing a conflict of interest (conflicts of interest can be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious in nature) that prevents making a fair and unbiased review, and decline to review.
• inform the editor if an ethical violation in the study is detected.
• make fair, honest, and unbiased reviews in the given time frame.
• review with fairness and confidentiality.
 review within the framework of scientific criteria independent of personal preferences and opinions.
 not share, store or copy the manuscript; documents must be destroyed after the reviewing process.
 If another reviewer’s opinion is needed on specific parts of the manuscript during the peer review process, partial confidentiality can be extended only with the permission of the editor.
 not use data, arguments, or comments about the study without the permission of the author(s) before publication.
• report in a way to show that scientific review has been made (such as the optional peer reviewer form, review notes on the article, scientific evaluation notes in the evaluation form).
• be direct in the report, but also maintain a respectful tone.

ETHICAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS
General duties and responsibilities
• Editors undertake the task of maintaining business processes without compromising ethical standards, regardless of any political and commercial factors, and are responsible for each publication published in the journal in the context of its compliance with the journal's publication policy.
• Editors should strive to meet the information needs of their stakeholders
• It should constantly strive to increase the quality of the journal and to ensure its development.
• Use appropriate processes to improve the quality of studies published in the journal.
• It should support the freedom of expression of the relevant stakeholders in all operational processes.
• It should prepare the ground for scientific discussion through publications by encouraging qualified critical analyzes of the studies published in the journal.
• It should take responsibility for the rapid and visible correction of any errors, inconsistencies, or misdirection in the studies.
• Considering conflicts of interest and relationships between authors-reviewers-field editors, it should ensure that the publication process of studies is completed in an independent and impartial manner.
• It is responsible for protecting the intellectual property rights of all published articles and defending the rights of the journal and authors in case of possible violations. In addition, it should take the necessary measures in order not to infringe the rights of other publications with its own publications.
• Editors should carefully investigate and respond to objections from authors, peer reviewers, or readers in an enlightening and explanatory manner; be ready to issue corrections, clarifications, retractions, rebuttals, and apologies in a transparent and clear way when necessary

Relations with readers
• It should inform the readers about the measures taken to ensure that the articles from the editorial board and other employees of the journal are also evaluated in an objective and unbiased manner.
• Inform readers about who is funding the research and whether the funders have a role in the research and publication process.
• Editors are obliged to consider the feedback from readers, researchers, and practitioners about the studies published in the journal, to give explanatory and informative feedback, and to take necessary actions.
Relations with Authors
• Editors should take the studies that fall within the scope of the journal to the preliminary evaluation stage unless there is a significant non-compliance.
• The decision to accept or reject the submitted studies should be based on the importance and originality of the study in the literature, the validity of the study, and the scope of the journal.
• The procedures followed for peer reviewing and its process should be announced, kept up-to-date, and compliance should be monitored.
• Authors should be informed in an explanatory way.

Relations with peer reviewers
Editors should;
• ensure that the peer reviewer database represents the academic community related to the subject of the journal and add new peer reviewers as needed.
• select the peer reviewers to be assigned from experts in that field in accordance with the subject of the study.
• inform peer reviewers about their responsibilities and present all the necessary resources regarding the peer review process.
• ensure that the peer review process is conducted with double-blind peer review (principle) and should keep the identities of the authors and reviewers confidential.
• consider whether there is a conflict of interest between authors and reviewers. The editors should be careful that the peer reviewer to be appointed does not have a recent joint work with the author and does not work in the same institution with the author.
• encourage the peer reviewers to comment on issues such as ethical issues, possible research abuses, originality, and plagiarism.
• encourage the peer reviewers to the desired assessment quality and style (wording), and determine practices and policies that improve the performance of the peer reviewers.
• prevent inappropriate/unkind and unscientific assessments. He/she should warn peer reviewers who prepare low-quality reports or do not abide by the times given to him/her, or remove them from the peer reviewer list.

Relations with the Editorial Board
Editors should;
• appoint new editorial board members who can contribute and are suitable.
• clearly guide the board members about responsibilities expected to be assumed.
• ensure that the members of the editorial board assess the studies impartially and independently.
• ensure that all editorial board members conduct processes in accordance with publication policies and guidelines.
• Regularly interact with the board members to get their opinions about the management of the journal, report changes in journal policies, and make plans for the future.

EDITORIAL POLICY

1. The Global Journal of Economics and Business Studies is a scientific, peer-reviewed, and free journal published twice a year. It publishes several types of related (interdisciplinary) scientific studies in Turkish or English that are of interest to the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences. Academic studies from other fields of social sciences and/or not related to the specified fields are not included.
2. Studies submitted to the journal are first subjected to a preliminary examination in terms of formatting and content. The formatting requirements and the submission process must be fulfilled in accordance with those directions. Works that do not comply with these requirements are subject to editorial rejection. After the preliminary evaluation, studies that are found in accordance with the publication principles and formatting rules are sent to at least two peer reviewers. There is no guarantee that the articles submitted to the journal will be included in the peer review process.
3. GJEBS uses a double-blind peer-review system where the names of the reviewers and authors are kept confidential at every stage of the process. The author(s) who submit the article are deemed to have accepted the peer reviewer evaluation conditions and process of the journal. Persons who do not contribute intellectually to the study should not be mentioned as authors.
4. The studies submitted to the journal should not be in the evaluation process of another journal at the same time, and should not have been previously accepted for publication or published anywhere. All responsibility in this matter belongs to the author(s) of the article.
5. An author whose article is published in the journal should not apply for a new article within 1 (one) year. At least 1 (one) year must pass before a second article of the author can be published.
6. No royalties are paid to the authors by our journal. All content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution for non-commercial purposes. 
7. The author(s) are responsible for the opinions expressed in the study.

ARTICLE EVALUATION PROCESS
The studies submitted to our journal go through the following stages.

1. Preliminary Evaluation Process (Pre-Review Process)
The studies submitted to the journal are first subjected to preliminary evaluation by editors, assistant editors (publication commission), or field experts. As a result of the evaluation, studies that do not fall within the aim and scope of the journal, do not comply with the ethical rules, do not have original value, do not comply with the content and format requirements and writing rules, and do not meet the publication policies are rejected without starting the peer review process or the author(s) may be asked to make some changes.
The following steps are followed within the scope of the preliminary examination;
- First of all, studies that do not comply with the journal template and writing rules and that do not have an "Ethics Committee Permission Report" for studies that require ethics committee permission are returned to the author(s) without being included in the evaluation process. If there are deficiencies in the format conditions, corrections can be requested from the responsible author.
- In the second stage, the submitted study is scanned for similarity in the iThenticate plagiarism program. Studies with a similarity rate of more than 20% (however, the similarity rate from a single source should be less than 3%) are returned to the author(s) without being included in the evaluation process.

2. Scientific Evaluation Process - Peer Review Process
Studies that pass the preliminary evaluation are included in the peer review process. In the journal, every stage of the evaluation process is carried out on the basis of double-blind peer reviewing, in which the names of the reviewers and authors are kept confidential. Author(s) should not include their identity information directly or indirectly in their work.
In this stage, the study is sent to at least two peer reviewers determined by the field editor in accordance with its topic, and the number of reviewers can be increased if necessary.
Peer reviewers are selected from the reviewer pool, taking into account their field of specialization. An invitation is sent to the peer reviewers for the review of the study. The reviewer may accept or reject the invitation within 7 (seven) days. If not responded within the seven-day period, an additional 5 (five) days will be given. If he/she does not respond within this period, another reviewer will be appointed.
While the reviewers evaluate the studies sent to them; they take into account matters such as originality, methodology, contribution to the literature, analysis, presentation of findings, interpretation technique and support of results, and benefiting from previous studies.
Peer reviewers may make a recommendation of either accept, reject, or revise (revision of format and/or content). In order for a study to be accepted for publication, at least two reviewers must give positive opinions. If one of the reviewers’ evaluations is positive and the other negative, the study is sent to a third reviewer. It is decided to publish or reject the study in line with the report of the third reviewer.
If the peer reviewer(s) requests a revision, the author(s) must complete the suggested revisions in 15 (fifteen) days at the latest, taking into account the criticisms and suggestions made by the reviewer. The studies that do not comply with those suggestions and/or are not sent within the specified time are removed from the process. Peer reviewers may request more than one revision for the same study.
3. Final Evaluation
The editor-in-chief makes the final decision in accordance with the peer review reports and the opinion of the field editor. Accepted studies are placed in the order of publication and published taking into account the acceptance dates.
                                                     

PERIODS
Our journal aims to complete the total evaluation process of a study in approximately 3 months (83 days), including a preliminary evaluation period of 15 days, a scientific evaluation period of 53 days, and a final evaluation period of 15 days. The author(s) who submit the article to the Journal are deemed to have accepted the Journal's peer review process and its conditions.
The Editorial Board can make changes in times and processes. It is determined by the Editorial Board when and in what number the articles accepted to the journal will be published.

STAGES	PERIOD (days)
Preliminary Evaluation	15
Scientific Evaluation • Assigning peer reviewers • Peer reviewers accept to review • Peer reviewers evaluate the study • Author(s) make revisions (if requested)	10 7 21 15
Final Evaluation	15

Note: The above-mentioned periods are the scheduled times and it should be known that there may be delays caused by peer reviewers and authors.