Review Process

The Turkish Journal of International Development (TUJID) employs a double-blind peer review system to enhance published works' scholarly quality and academic contribution. This system ensures complete impartiality and confidentiality between authors and reviewers. The process guarantees a fair evaluation environment for all parties involved and upholds the objective assessment of scientific content.

1. Initial Screening

The journal's editors or associate editors initially assess all submitted manuscripts. At this stage, submissions are reviewed for:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope and objectives,
  • Compliance with formatting and submission guidelines,
  • Fulfillment of fundamental academic and ethical standards.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected outright or returned to authors for formatting revisions before proceeding to peer review.

2. Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two expert reviewers in the relevant field. In adherence to the double-blind review system, authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other to minimize bias and maintain objectivity.

  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and may be drawn from the journal's reviewer database or invited externally if necessary.
  • The standard review period is two weeks from the date of assignment.
  • Reviewers evaluate manuscripts and make one of the following recommendations:
    • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no revisions.
    • Minor Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor changes, with a two-week revision period.
    • Major Revisions Required: Significant revisions are needed, and the authors are given one month to address the comments.
    • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the required academic standards and is rejected with a justified explanation.
  • Authors are required to submit their revisions within the specified deadlines. Failure to do so will result in the withdrawal of the manuscript from the review process. The responsibility for meeting these deadlines rests solely with the authors.
  • Upon revision, authors must highlight all changes and provide a detailed response report addressing the reviewers’ comments.
  • If one of the reviewers rejects the manuscript, it is forwarded to a third reviewer for an additional independent assessment. If the third reviewer also recommends rejection, the manuscript is returned to the author(s), and the review process is concluded.
  • If reviewers request revisions, authors are expected to implement them. However, in exceptional cases where authors provide strong evidence-based arguments to defend their original approach and the editor deems the justification valid, the manuscript may still be accepted for publication.

Reviewer's article evaluation criteria;

  • The academic contribution, novelty and significance of the study,
  • Adequacy of the theoretical framework and methods,
  • Reliability of the findings and comprehensiveness of the discussion section,
  • Compliance of the study with ethical standards.

Reviewer Reports

Peer reviews are generally based on a review of the manuscripts in terms of originality, methodology, compliance with ethical rules, consistent presentation of findings and conclusions, and literature.

This review is based on the following elements:

  1. Introduction and Literature: The review report includes the presentation and aims of the problem addressed in the study, the importance of the topic, the scope of the literature on the subject, the timeliness and originality of the study, and the compatibility of the title, abstract and article content.
  2. Methodology: The evaluation report includes opinions on the appropriateness of the method used, the selection and characteristics of the research sample, information on validity and reliability, as well as the data collection and analysis process.
  3. Findings: The evaluation report includes opinions on the presentation of the findings obtained within the framework of the method in the article, the correct selection of the analysis methods in line with the purpose of the article, the consistency of the findings obtained with the objectives of the research, the proper presentation of the tables, figures and visuals needed, and the conceptual evaluation of the cases used.
  4. Evaluation and discussion: The evaluation report includes a discussion of the topic based on the findings, the relevance to the research question(s) and hypothesis(es), generalizability and applicability.
  5. Conclusion and recommendations: The evaluation report includes an opinion on the contribution to the literature, suggestions for future studies and applications in the field.
  6. Style and expression: The evaluation report includes opinions on the inclusion of the title of the study in the content, the proper use of English, and the citation and references in accordance with the language of the full text in accordance with APA 7 rules.
  7. Overall evaluation: The evaluation report includes opinions on the originality of the study as a whole and its contribution to the literature and practice in the field.