Review Process

Information World implements a double-blind peer-review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed. Each manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a multi-stage and comprehensive evaluation process conducted with the contribution of editorial board members and at least two independent reviewers.

Stages of the Editorial Board Review Process

Manuscripts are first subjected to a preliminary evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief. During this initial assessment, the manuscript is evaluated in terms of its alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, scientific and publication quality, language proficiency, adherence to ethical principles, and the presence of any potential conflicts of interest.

Manuscripts deemed insufficient in terms of scientific rigor, originality, or suitability for the target audience may be rejected at this stage without being sent for peer review. For manuscripts considered suitable following the preliminary assessment, a Section Editor is assigned to oversee the evaluation process.

At this stage, the Statistical Editor and the Language Editor may be involved in the process if deemed necessary.

Manuscripts approved for further evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief and the Section Editor are submitted to two independent reviewers in accordance with the double-blind peer-review principle.

The Section Editor analyzes the reviewers’ evaluation reports in detail and submits a reasoned opinion and recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals and Complaints

The journal adheres to the principles and guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in handling appeals and complaints related to the peer-review process. Although appeals against editorial decisions are considered, authors are expected to substantiate their objections with strong evidence, additional information, and concrete data.

Authors may submit their appeals via email to [email protected].

Editors respond to appeals within a maximum of two months. Following review, the manuscript may be accepted or rejected; revisions may be requested from the authors; or, if deemed necessary, an additional round of peer review may be initiated. Decisions made regarding appeals are final.

Manuscript Withdrawal

Manuscripts that have been sent for peer review may not be withdrawn without justification. However, in cases of unusual or unreasonable delays in the peer-review process, authors reserve the right to withdraw their manuscripts.

For manuscripts for which the peer-review process has not yet commenced, the corresponding author may submit a withdrawal request via email to [email protected].

Editorial Evaluation Process

The editorial board first conducts a technical review of submitted manuscripts. This includes a similarity check using Turnitin or iThenticate software, verification of compliance with formatting requirements, confirmation that all required information and declarations have been fully provided, and examination of the completeness of relevant files, forms, and documents.

The preliminary evaluation conducted by the Editor-in-Chief covers criteria such as alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, scientific and publication quality, language proficiency, adherence to ethical principles, and potential conflicts of interest. At this stage, the Editor-in-Chief may directly reject the manuscript or forward it to the Section Editors for detailed evaluation.

During the evaluation conducted by the Section Editors, objective errors in the manuscript, issues related to language and expression (including grammar, spelling conventions, and consistency with the relevant scientific literature), the methodological and scientific rigor of the research, and compliance with ethical principles and standards are assessed. Based on this evaluation, Section Editors may reject the manuscript or refer it to peer review.

Peer-Review Process

Reviewers are proposed by the Section Editors based on their expertise and the manuscript’s subject matter and scope. Upon approval by the Editor-in-Chief, review invitations are sent to the selected reviewers. In the event of a potential conflict of interest, the editorial board evaluates the situation and initiates the reviewer assignment process if deemed appropriate. The editorial board adheres to COPE guidelines regarding conflicts of interest.

Reviewers conduct a comprehensive and detailed evaluation of the manuscript’s scientific quality. This assessment includes the clarity of the research question and hypothesis, the theoretical framework and its relationship to the relevant literature, the appropriateness of the methodology, adherence to scientific standards, the quality of language and presentation, and the strengths and weaknesses of the study.

Reviewers also provide constructive and well-justified feedback aimed at improving the content or presentation of the study’s findings. At the conclusion of the review process, reviewers submit one of the following recommendations: “Accept for publication,” “Minor revision,” “Major revision,” or “Reject.”

In the review report, reviewers are expected to support their evaluations with references to the relevant literature where appropriate. Detailed technical or content-based comments may also be provided directly on the manuscript file when necessary.

In addition, reviewers have the opportunity to submit confidential and editorial comments to the Editor-in-Chief and the Section Editor, separate from the feedback communicated to the authors.

Final Decision for Publication

Upon completion of the requested revisions by the authors and/or submission of the final version of the manuscript, the Section Editors submit their reasoned recommendations regarding publication to the Editor-in-Chief. If deemed necessary, multiple rounds of peer review may be conducted prior to the final decision.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding publication by conducting a holistic evaluation of the opinions and recommendations of the Section Editors. If necessary, reviewers’ opinions may be consulted again at this stage. Based on this decision, the manuscript is either accepted for publication or rejected.

In the event of acceptance, the production process is initiated, and the manuscript is prepared for publication by the responsible editors.