EROJ – Peer Review Policy

Eurasian Research Organization Journals adopts the Instructions for Scientific Research and Publication Ethics guidelines issued by the Council of Higher Education. For more information on Ethical Principles and publication Policy. 

1) Eurasian Journal of Research and Innovation 

2) Eurasian Journal of Management and Trade 

3) Eurasian Journal of Literature and Languages 

 

ERO Journals Peer Review Policy 
  • Manuscripts found suitable due to the preliminary review will be sent to the reviewers for scientific evaluation in a blind review. Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editors, Editorial Board and/or associate editors will decide whether to publish the manuscripts. If deemed necessary, papers will be returned to authors to revise or suggest corrections according to the reviewers’ criticisms and suggestions. The review process cannot start if any of the requirements mentioned in this journal are not met or missing, such as detailed personal information about the authors (corresponding author, affiliation, email, etc.) or typos in the submission form, etc.
  • During the review process, authors can only communicate with the Managing Editor via email. A strict double-blind procedure will be followed in reviewing manuscripts in the journal.
  • The author(s) cannot make changes to accepted and completed manuscripts.
  • The author(s) is/are responsible for the content of the published manuscript (the accuracy of references and quotations, arguments and copyrighted tables, images and other figures).
Initial Manuscript Evaluation When a manuscript is submitted to Journals, it first undergoes a preliminary check known as a desk review. The Managing Editor first evaluates all manuscripts submitted to journal. It is rare, but it is possible for an   exceptional manuscript or an invited paper to be accepted at this stage by  the Editor. Manuscript that do not   follow the format specified by the journal will be rejected at this stage are;

• Inappropriate to Journals Submission Guidelines (i.e. Manuscript format is not appropriate),
• Lack of originality, novelty, or significance (i.e. Results that are not generalizable,
• Mismatch with the aims and scope of the journal (i.e. Topics that are not of interest to the journal’s   readership)
• Have poor grammar  or  language errors
• Flaws in study design (i.e. Choice of a weak or unreliable method)
• Poor Writing and Setup (i.e. insufficient explanation of the rationale for the study, inadequate   description of methods)
Review Report Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript meets the criteria under the following dimension:
1. Presentation
1.1. General Readability.
1.2. Organization and Efficiency,
1.3. Focus/Clarity of Expression,
1.4. Grammar, Spelling, and Punctuation,
1.5. APA //MLA Format (citation in text, references, tables and Statistical Abbreviations.
2. Introduction to manuscript
 • Appropriateness of Title,
 • Structured Abstract,
 • Rationale for Study and Design,
 • Research Question Identified,
 • Pertinent Literature Reviewed,
 • Recent Literature Reviewed Organized and Focused,
 • Recent Research Reviewed and Critiqued in Article.
3. Methodology  (if any)
3.1. Appropriateness of Research Design
• Description of the quantitative- qualitative or mixed method research approach selected,
• Rationale for the quantitative- qualitative or mixed method research approach selected,
3.2. Research Sample/Study Group (described in detail, size justified)
• Qualitative research participants & setting (described in detail: who, where, and why).
3.3. Research Instruments (valid and reliable)
• Qualitative data collection procedures (described in detail: role of the researcher, relationship with participants,   researcher’s interest in research topic).
3.4. Procedures
3.5. Data Analysis (Discussion of Statistical analysis)
 • Qualitative Data Analysis (thoroughness and depth trustworthiness)
4. Results  (if any)
• Using text and visual aids properly,
• Interpreting results,
• Using headings and sub-headings,
• Using language of reporting appropriately,
• Referring to tables and figures correctly.
5. Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendation  (if any)
• Results Compared with relevant Literature,
• Conclusion Drawn Logically,
• Implications for Practice,
• Directions for Research,
• Identification Themes/Patterns (if a qualitative approach used)
• Evidence of Depth and Detail in Narrative of the findings (if a qualitative approach used).
6. Relevance & Significance 
• Significant Results or Conclusion,
• Relevant and Useful Recommendations,
• Timely of Interest to the Audience of this Journal,
• Value for an International Readership,
• Contribution to the Field,