Journal of Sustainable Business, Economics and Finance (JOSBEF)
Quality Control System (Peer Review):
All papers published in the journal are subject to quality control system (peer review). Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of sound science. All manuscripts submitted to JOSBEF are reviewed according to the steps below:
Review Method: The Journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, whereby authors do not know reviewers and vice versa.
Double-blinde peer review is a method used to make sure scientific publications are produced with the highest quality. Appropriate papers are sent to independent reviewers for evaluation. Reviewers, receive author’s article with no mention of their identity including their work and ethnicity. The authors as well are not informed about the reviewers’ identity.
Pre-review: At this step, each submission is checked for appropriateness when received by the editorial office. In the pre-review step, the submission is evaluated the introduction and literature, method, findings, results, discussion parts of the studies in detail with respect to the journal policies, and aims and scope of the journal as well as originality. If a submission is outside the aims and scope of the journal, does not comply with the guidelines, weak in terms of language and wording, lack originality, contain critical scientific mistakes, is obviously of insufficient quality, or is missing important sections will be rejected without review by the Editor.
Assigning Reviewers: The journal invites members of the Editorial Board as well as external experts to review each article deemed eligible for consideration. Reviewers are assigned according to the content of the studies and their subject of expertise.
Authors are encouraged to recommend suitable reviewers, but the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial office reserve the right to select different reviewers. The reason for asking authors to recommend reviewers is that they know best who is an expert in this field. In addition, the suggested reviewers may be suitable for other articles on the same subject. Therefore, obtaining these names can help the editorial office to ensure that it is approaching appropriate people to review all articles.
The recommendations are then evaluated by the editors and the studies are passed on to the reviewers who are obligated to guarantee that they will not share any document or detail about the study they review.
Reviewing Process: Reviewers are given 2-4 weeks for review. Authors are required to complete the aditing of their works within one month at the latest, taking into account the reports of the reviewers. Reviewers may request more than one editing of a study if they deem it necessary.
In the review process, reviewers are not expected to edit the study.
Reviewer Reports: In general, the reviewer reports are based on the originality of the studies, methods, ethical considerations, consistent presentation of the findings and results and analysis of the studies with respect to literature.
Reviewers advise on the originality and merit of the paper; the editors decide on publication.
Final Decision: The publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after receiving two external reviewer reports with recommendations.
Based on the review done by the field editor and reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision of (1) accept, (2) minor revision, (3) major revision, (4) minor and major revision or (5) reject. The reasons for the decision will be communicated to the authors. In this step the studies that are not accepted for publication are returned without request for plagiarism detection. The final decision about the accepted studies is made based on the results of the plagiarism detection report.
The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject the article when a minor/major revision decision is made and the authors do not revise their articles sufficiently after receiving the reviewer reports. Once revised articles are received, they will be submitted for further review or the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision based on the level of revision requested.
In this process the studies that are not accepted for publication are returned without request for plagiarism detection. The final decision about the accepted studies is made based on the results of the plagiarism detection report.
Plagiarism Detection: In accordance with its publishing policies, the JOSBEF obliges to detect plagiarism for any study that has passed the review process in order to protect the integrity of the study. Therefore, the work is detected as plagiarism by a company chosen by the editorial board. The resulting fees are paid by the authors.
The plagiarism detection is done with Turnitin software. After the plagiarism detection, the matches found in each study are analyzed in detail and the matches with the correct reference and cross-reference are listed. The authors may be asked to correct the mistakes in the report or the study may be returned to the authors.
System Notification: Based on the review done by the reviewers and plagiarism detection report, the editorial office reports the final decision of the editorial board to the authors within one week at the latest along with the suggestions made by the reviewers.
Editing and Revision: The authors are responsible for doing timely, complete and explanatory editing and revision to the study with an understanding that all the recommendations made by the journal are objective and improving the quality of the study.
Assigning a DOI Number: After the final decision, system notification, and editing and revision the manuscripts which are ready for publication are given a DOI number by the Editorial Office.
Review and Decision-making Time: Review and decision-making time is highly variable, as it is sometimes difficult to find suitable reviewers and there may be delays in receiving reviewer reports. The Editor-in-Chief and the editorial office make every effort to minimize the time from submission to first decision. The journal aims to make its first decision (after review) within 6-8 weeks.
Appeal a Decision: If an author considers that a decision of rejection has been made incorrectly, s/he can appeal the decision. To appeal a decision the author should email the Editor-in-Chief stating why they think the decision was wrong. The appeal will be considered by a member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the original decision. There is only one chance to appeal, so it is very important that the authors clearly explain the reason for the appeal.