Reviewer Guideline

TRANSPARENCY PRINCIPLE

After the preliminary evaluation of the Editor-in-Chief and Field Editor, the manuscripts are sent to two referees from the field. If there is a difference of opinion between the referee evaluations, a third referee is consulted.

In Turkish Management Review, all correspondence between the author and the editor; Editor-in-Chief, Field Editor and referee evaluation processes are transparent.

The names of the authors are not mentioned in the studies sent to the referees and the names of the referees are not mentioned in the reports sent to the authors.

If the referee thinks that there are ethical problems, data integrity and academic conflict issues related to the study, he / she will / should share these issues with the Editor.

In order to provide a holistic and consistent evaluation process as well as a better academic contribution to the author, the Editor may ask the referees to make suggestions to each other's reports. In this case, the names of the referees are not disclosed to each other.

What should the referee do after receiving the manuscript?

The referee should first check the file sent to him/her and make sure that the file is opened smoothly.

The referee should inform the editor within one (1) week whether or not he/she can evaluate the manuscript, taking into account the evaluation period foreseen for the study and the suitability of the subject of the study to him/her.

If the referee thinks that he/she cannot act fairly due to conflict of interest (author, institution, financier, etc.), he/she should inform the editor that he/she cannot evaluate the study.

If the referee has received support from someone else while evaluating the study, he/she is requested to inform the Editor of the name of this person. The journal believes that it would be ethical to include the name of the person in question as a referee.

PUBLICATION POLICY AND ETHICAL ISSUES

Since it is not possible for the editor to know all the factors mentioned, the referees are expected to inform the Editor about the situations that will prevent them from making a fair evaluation.No matter how much effort the editor makes regarding a study, he may not be able to notice violations of the publication policy and ethical problems. It is very important that reviewers who are experts in the field warn the Editor when they encounter these situations.

FEEDBACK TO REFEREES

The final version of a study that has been decided to be published is sent only to the referee who wants to see the study again. After a study is published, the referee may find that his/her own views are not fully reflected in the study. It is possible that other reviewers may have different opinions and the Editor may have taken these opinions into consideration. In this case, the opinions of other referees may be sent to him/her upon the request of the referee who evaluated the manuscript.

1. Based on the reviewers' suggestions, the Editor may take one of the following courses of action: Accept the manuscript for publication with a request for minor or major revision,
2. It may ask the author(s) to edit the manuscript in accordance with the referee's comments and initiate a new evaluation process,
3. She may refuse to work.

In their reports, the referees may give a definite opinion about the publication or non-publication of the study. However, the Editor will make a decision based on the opposing views of the reviewers. In this regard, the Editor does not look at the number of referees who accept or reject, but at the strength of the referees' or authors' arguments. The editor considers reports with strong, well-reasoned proposals rather than reports with yes or no answers to the evaluation questions.

 

SELECTION OF REFEREES

Many factors play a role in referee selection. Factors such as experience, suitability of the field of study, previous experience of the Editor related to the referee are the most decisive factors in the selection of the referee.The author/authors may request that their work not be sent to some referees on the grounds of conflict of interest.The referee list is periodically evaluated and renewed by the editorial staff with each issue and shared on the credits page.

If requested by our referees, referee certificates are sent to our referees for the studies they have refereed following the issue in which the study is published.

 

REPORT WRITING

For report writing; the referee evaluation form, which is attached to the e-mail sent to the referees, should be used.

Referee evaluations are expected to focus especially on the following questions; Does the study make an original contribution to the knowledge in the field? Is the study scientifically up-to-date?

Reviewers are expected to be critical and unbiased, and are expected to make only a text-centered evaluation and avoid statements about the inadequacies of the author(s).

In addition to the evaluation criteria, referees are expected to elaborate their negative opinions and state their reasons in the space next to the evaluation form, if necessary. In particular, the referee who expresses a negative opinion should present the weaknesses of the study and the reasons for rejection.

The editor intervenes in spelling mistakes in referee reports, statements that deem the author(s) incompetent, rude or insulting statements, and information errors.

TIME

Referees are given 30 days to evaluate a manuscript. If the referees cannot evaluate the manuscript within this period, they may request additional time from the Editor or inform the Editor that they cannot evaluate the manuscript due to time constraints. In this way, the author can be prevented from losing time and the Editor will be given enough time to appoint a new reviewer.