Peer-Review (Double-Blind)

Referee Review Process (Double-Blind):

Expert referees in the study field are identified at this stage, an invitation to arbitrate is sent and at least two (2) - usually three (3) - referees are appointed. The invitation to referee includes deadlines for accepting the invitation and, if accepted, for evaluating the work. Possible referees are expected to respond positively or negatively to this invitation within seven days. The invitation to arbitrate is withdrawn from potential arbitrators who do not accept the invitation to arbitrate or do not take any action within the given 7-day period. Invitations are sent to new potential referees until the number of referees who accept the invitation to arbitrate reaches at least 2, usually 3.

The referee teachers who accept the referee invitation are given a maximum of 30 days to complete the article evaluation. If the task is not completed at the end of this period, reminder messages are sent to our referee teachers. If there is no request for additional time by the referee or if the refereeing task is not completed despite two reminders sent every five days, the task is cancelled. If the referees request additional time and the evaluation period, the editor gives additional time to the referees, taking into account the article's evaluation process. When a referee's task is completed, a "Referee Appreciation Certificate" is sent to the referees by the journal editor.

If all the referees assigned to an article have decided on the article before the 30 days determined for the evaluation process, the editorial decision can be made when the final review is completed.

The referee decisions and evaluation reports are carefully examined, and the editorial decision is taken. If two referees are appointed in an article and one referee has made a favourable decision, and the other has made an adverse decision, then a third referee is appointed. The editorial decision is made taking into account the decision of the third referee. If there is a difference between the referees' decisions about the article and the evaluation reports, the evaluation reports are carefully examined, and the referee's opinion about the article is tried to be determined.

TUJOM Journal tries to be as careful, meticulous and sensitive as possible to evaluate the articles entering the referee evaluation process most accurately and objectively and be bound to the editorial decision.

Our referees, who took part in the Referee Review Process, are asked to evaluate the articles according to the following criteria:


Readability of the paper,

Focus/clarity of expression,

Grammar, spelling and punctuation,

Using the APA 6 format,

Abstract quality



Appropriateness of the English title of the paper,

Reviewing up-to-date and relevant literature on the subject being studied,

Explaining the purpose of the study, problematic, research questions and justifying the research design.



Methodology, compatibility of the methodology with the research subject, appropriateness of the research design,

Appropriateness or errors of the methodology,

Research tools (valid and reliable), data collection method,

Compliance of data analysis (quantitative and qualitative analysis) with research questions.



Appropriateness of the findings in accordance with the purpose of the study,

The relationship of the findings with the research problematic,

Are the findings commented on? (the findings are expected to be written without comments)

Consistency of the findings with the analysis results,



The conclusion part is written based on the research problematic,

The results include the most important findings obtained in line with the analyzes,

Statement of support or non-support of the hypotheses (if applicable)

Comparing the results with similar studies in the literature,

The recommendations are based on the findings of the research,

Suggestions for further researches,

Recommendations to managers, business or other external stakeholders (optional).



Interesting and noteworthy aspects of the article,

Contribution to the related scientific areas ,

Critical flows of the study (logical, methodological, analytical, ethical or other) preventing this article from being published.


Referee Decision Recommendations And Explanations

Referee Decision Recommendation

Editor Decision


Accept Submission

Accept Submission

The reviewed study is accepted for publication. There is no need for correction.

Revisions Required

Revisions Required

After reviewing the article, the referee asks for revisions. The referee does not have to review the article again. The editor is expected to accept submission after checking the revisions.

Resubmit for New Review Process

Resubmit for New Review Process

The referee detects the parts that need to be corrected. The referee wants the article to re-review after the revisions of the author. Following the re-reviewing, the referee could decide either as "accept submission" or "decline submission".

Decline Submission

Decline Submission

The referee declines the article due to various reasons. The referee lists his/her reasons for the decline.  The editor may decline an article as well, providing the referee with the justifications. The editor may also recommend the author to send the article to another journal for publication.


In the referee review process, to evaluate the referees' correction requests more efficiently, a form called the TUJOM Response Letter Form includes the revisions made in response to the referees' correction requests and the author's comments from the authors. In this form, the authors state whether they can make the desired corrections, if they did, their explanations about the correction, and if they did not (a), why (a) they did not. Authors are required to upload the TUJOM Response Letter Form to the journal system with their revised studies.

On the day that all referees' reviews are completed, an editorial decision is made, and the authors are informed about the article. In case of revision requests that the referees do not want to see again, the authors are given a maximum of 10 days to complete the revision and upload it to the journal system. In the revision request that the referees want to re-evaluate, the authors are asked to complete the revision within a maximum of 15 days and upload it to the journal system. At the end of these periods, two reminder messages are sent to the authors every five days. If the authors want additional time, additional time can be given according to the editor's decision. If there is no return after two reminders from the authors, the studies are rejected by the editorial decision. On the day of the revision of the article from the authors, if the referees will make a re-review, they are directed to the referees, if the referees will not review the revision, that is, if the editor will review and decide on the revision, the review is completed as soon as possible (usually one day), and the editor's decision is made. If the referees will make a re-review according to the revision request decision they made after the first evaluation, a 7-day review period is allowed in this process. In re-reviews, referees are given a 7-day review period for each review round.

The referee review processes of the articles are finalized for not less than 21 days.