PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The primary purpose of the peer review process is to ensure the publication of high-quality and original scientific research. All articles published in the Journal of Society, Economy and Management (TEYD) are subject to peer review, and each manuscript submitted for publication undergoes the evaluation process described below.
Preliminary Evaluation
All manuscripts submitted to the journal that pass the plagiarism screening are initially reviewed by the Editorial Board. Articles that do not fall within the scope of the journal or fail to meet scientific writing standards in terms of content and format are either rejected before entering the peer review process or returned to the authors with a request for revisions. At this stage, no manuscript may be accepted for publication by the editor without a favorable referee report.
Manuscripts that are not aligned with the aims and scope of the journal, that demonstrate poor language and expression, contain significant scientific errors, lack originality, or do not meet the journal’s publication policies are rejected during the preliminary evaluation phase.
Review Policy
The Journal of Society, Economy and Management (TEYD) employs a double-blind peer review system at every stage of the evaluation process, whereby both the reviewers’ and authors’ identities are kept confidential.
Double-blind peer review is a method widely adopted by academic journals to ensure objective evaluation and maintain the highest standards in scientific publishing.
Peer reviews of all manuscripts submitted to TEYD are conducted anonymously, in accordance with the steps outlined below.
In the double-blind process used by TEYD, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the entire review process.
Peer Evaluation
Manuscripts that pass the preliminary evaluation are forwarded to at least two reviewers, selected by the editor and/or the editorial board. If necessary, the number of reviewers may be increased. Reviewers are chosen from the reviewer pool in accordance with their areas of expertise.
Manuscripts are assigned to reviewers based on the content of the study and the reviewers’ subject expertise. Reviewers are required to guarantee that they will not share any part of the review process or related documents.
The reviewers are given 30 days to complete their evaluations. Authors must submit their revisions in accordance with the “revision report” within one month following any suggestions or corrections from the reviewers or the editor. Reviewers may accept or reject a manuscript, or request revisions related to content and/or format. They may also request multiple rounds of revision if necessary.
Reviewers assess the manuscripts based on originality, methodology, contribution to the literature, presentation of findings, substantiation of results, and the effective use of prior research. In order for a manuscript to be accepted for publication, at least two positive reviewer reports are required. If one report is positive and the other is negative, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer for further evaluation.
If the reviewers request revisions, the author(s) must revise the manuscript in line with the reviewers’ comments and resubmit it to the Editorial Board within 60 days. Manuscripts not resubmitted within two months will be removed from the evaluation process. Reviewers may request more than one revision of the same manuscript. Manuscripts that are not accepted for publication will not be returned to the authors.
Reviewer Reports
Reviewers’ evaluations are generally based on criteria such as originality, the methodology used, compliance with ethical standards, consistency in the presentation of findings and conclusions, and relevance to the existing literature.
Final Evaluation
All manuscripts that receive favorable evaluations from the reviewers are subject to final evaluation by the Editor or the Editorial Board. Manuscripts approved for publication are placed in the publication queue.
Reviewers are kindly requested to consider the following criteria when evaluating manuscripts: