Scientific Journal of Finance and Financial Law Studies (SJFFLS) – Author Guidelines

Authors are expected to comply with scientific and formatting standards when preparing manuscripts for submission to the Scientific Journal of Finance and Financial Law Studies (SJFFLS), including writing format, citation rules, and structural requirements.
Click here for the Sample Template.

All required documents and sample templates for the submission process can be accessed on the “Documents Required During Article Submission” page.
Only manuscripts prepared in accordance with the journal’s writing template are considered for review. Files that do not comply with the template will be returned to the author(s) for revision during the preliminary review stage.

1. General Rules

Font type: Times New Roman

Font size: 11 pt

Paragraph spacing: Before 0 pt, after 6 pt

Line spacing: 1.15 (Multiple)

Text alignment: Justified

In-text citation format: APA 7

2. Article Title and Author Information

Title:
Times New Roman, Capitalize Each Word, Bold, 14 pt, Left Aligned, 12 pt space before and 6 pt after, Line spacing: Multiple (1.15)

Author information:
Should not be written until the article is accepted.
Times New Roman, Capitalize Each Word, Bold, 12 pt, Left Aligned, 6 pt space before and after, Line spacing: Multiple (1.15)

3. Abstract and Keywords

Abstract:
Should be limited to 150 words, written as a single paragraph, and justified.
Times New Roman, 9 pt, spacing before 0 and after 6 pt, special = none, line spacing = single.

Keywords:
Should include 3–5 words.
Times New Roman, Capitalize Each Word, Bold, 9 pt, Left Aligned, 6 pt space before and after, Line spacing: Multiple (1.15)

JEL Codes should be determined from the relevant website: https://ideas.repec.org/JEL/

4. Article Sections and Format

The article should follow the IMRAD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion).

4.1. Introduction

Heading format:
Level 1 headings: All caps, bold, 11 pt, justified.

Content:

The research problem should be defined.

Relevant literature should be reviewed.

The research method and main findings should be stated.

4.2. Conceptual Framework

Theoretical foundations of the topic should be explained.

In-text citations must follow APA 7 format.

4.3. Research
4.3.1. Purpose and Importance of the Research

The purpose should answer the questions “What?”, “How?”, and “Why?”.

4.3.2. Population and Sample of the Research

The sampling process should be clearly described.

The sampling technique used should be explained.

4.3.3. Research Method

The research design, data collection, and analysis methods should be explained in detail.

4.3.4. Findings and Discussion

Findings should be presented systematically and supported by tables, figures, and statistics.

Table and Figure Rules:

Tables should be created in Microsoft Word.

Table titles should be placed above, bold, and in 11 pt.

Tables and figures must comply with APA 7 formatting standards.

Commas should be used as decimal separators.

4.4. Conclusion and Discussion

Numerical findings should not be repeated.

Similarities and differences with previous studies should be emphasized.

5. References and Citation Rules (APA 7 Format)
5.1. In-Text Citations (APA 7 Format)

Single author:
...... (Wilson, 2021).
...... Wilson (2021) stated that...

Two authors:
...... (Watson & Hassett, 2023).

Three or more authors:
...... (Wollmann et al., 2019).

Different years by the same author:
...... (Dollery, 2008, 2012).

Same year, different works by the same author:
...... (Davis, 2020a, 2020b).

Multiple sources cited together:
...... (Watson & Hassett, 2003; Wollmann et al., 2019).

5.2. Reference List Examples (APA 7 Format)

References should be justified, in 10 pt, with 1.15 line spacing.

Article:
Baker, J. S., & Jones, M. A. (1996). The poison grapevine: How destructive are gossip and rumor in the workplace? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/xxxxxxxx

Book:
Dunbar, R. (1997). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Harvard University Press.

Internet Source:
Dingfelder, S. F. (2006). Learned it through the grapevine. APA Monitor on Psychology. https://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/grapevine

Thesis:
Danış, M. S. (2015). Dedikodunun sosyolojisi [Master’s thesis, Selçuk University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.

Report:
World Health Organization. (2020). Mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak (WHO/2019-nCoV/MentalHealth/2020.1). https://www.who.int/docs

Book Chapter:
Erol, Y., & Akyüz, M. (2015). Örgütlerde dedikodunun işlevleri ve algılanışı. In K. Yılmaz & S. Doğan (Eds.), Sosyoloji ve örgüt çalışmaları (pp. 149–168). Nobel Yayıncılık.

PUBLICATION ETHICS

Scientific Journal of Finance and Financial Law Studies is dedicated to ensuring best practices on ethical matters, errors, and retractions. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is expected of all parties involved: Editors, Authors, and Reviewers. The following ethics topics outlined for editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the COPE Code of Conduct for journal editors. Editors, authors, and reviewers will also adhere to the Scientific Journal of Finance and Financial Law Studies submission guidelines.
Editor's Duties: Publication Decisions The editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept, reject or request modifications to the manuscript. The editor does not reject papers based on suspicions, they shall have proof of misconduct.

Review of Manuscripts: The editor ensures that each manuscript submitted to the Scientific Journal of Finance and Financial Law Studies is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. The editor also ensures that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality, making use of appropriate software to do so. Following desk review, the manuscript is forwarded to blind peer review to make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript.

Ethical Guidelines: The editor shall ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines. Editors take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Confidentiality: The editor ensures that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor shall not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his/her own research without the written consent of the author.
Authors' Duties:
Originality and Plagiarism: The authors must ensure that their work is entirely original works, and relevant previous work/words and publications, both by others and the authors' own should be appropriately acknowledged and referenced. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere in any language.

Multiple Submissions: Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.

Authorship: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors and should keep co-authors informed and involve them in major decisions about the publication. Any change to the author list should be approved by all authors including any who have been removed from the list. Papers submitted by co-editors or editorial board members of Scientific Journal of Finance and Financial Law Studies as to whether the corresponding author or not should have handled by the editor and papers submitted by the editor as to whether corresponding author or not should have handled by one of the editorial board members to ensure unbiased and independent handling of such papers. Editor, co-editors, and editorial board members have no right to any process of their papers after they are submitted.

Peer Review Process: Authors must participate in the peer-review process. They should inform the editor if they withdraw their work from review, or choose not to respond to reviewer comments after receiving a conditional acceptance. Authors must respond to reviewers' comments in a professional and timely manner.

Data Authenticity and Retention: Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscripts. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic. They should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication (making up research data), falsification (manipulation of existing data), or inappropriate data manipulation.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: All authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts including a statement disclosing any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. Funding sources should be disclosed.

Fundamental Errors: Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover an error in any submitted, accepted, or published work. Authors should cooperate with editors in issuing corrections or retractions when required.

Research on Human Subjects: When appropriate, all authors must cite approval by an institutional review board (IRB) for research on human subjects.
Reviewers' Duties:

Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep all manuscripts received for review confidential. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Standards of Objectivity: Reviewers should be objective and constructive in their reviews with no personal criticism of the author.

Supporting Argument: Reviewers should express their views clearly and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the paper. They should not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations. Reviewers should be specific in their criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, 'this work has been done before, to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors.

Plagiarism, Fraud and Other Ethical Concerns: Reviewers should let the editor know if they suspect/find that a manuscript is a substantial copy of another work, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible. Reviewers should also identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. They should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source.

Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete the review of the manuscript within stipulated time should also notify the editor so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.