Manuscript Preliminary Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts submitted to Business & Management Studies: An International Journal (BMIJ) undergo a preliminary editorial assessment before being considered for peer review. This stage determines whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s scope, scholarly publishing standards, research ethics requirements, and author guidelines.

Passing the preliminary assessment does not constitute acceptance for publication. Manuscripts found suitable are forwarded to subject-area experts for double-blind peer review.

Scope of the Preliminary Assessment

The editorial office cross-checks the manuscript against all supplementary materials submitted with it, including ethics committee approval documents, data collection instruments, datasets, analysis outputs, similarity reports, and other relevant files.

The preliminary assessment covers the following areas:

• Plagiarism and similarity screening

• Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope

• Scientific adequacy

• Accuracy of references and citations

• Requirement for and validity of ethics committee approval

• Consistency between the ethics committee approval date and the data collection period

• Disclosure of generative artificial intelligence use

• Consistency between the manuscript, data, and analysis results

• Internal and formal consistency of the manuscript

Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are screened using appropriate similarity detection software. The editorial office evaluates not only the overall similarity score but also source-specific matches and the nature of the identified similarities.

The similarity thresholds applied by BMIJ are as follows:

• The overall similarity score must be 20% or lower, excluding the reference list.

• Similarity attributable to any single source must not exceed 3%.

• Compliance with these numerical thresholds does not automatically render a manuscript acceptable.

• The final assessment considers the content, length, source, context, and scholarly nature of the identified matches.

The assessment focuses particularly on:

• Long and uncited matching passages

• Close paraphrasing without proper attribution

• Passages produced through only minor changes to the wording of a source

• Material reused from an author’s previous publications without appropriate citation

• Tables, figures, or images reproduced from other studies

• Fragmentation of the same dataset across multiple publications

• Extensive reliance on a single source

Matches arising from the reference list, standard methodological statements, statutory provisions, scale items, and essential technical terminology are distinguished from substantive textual similarity. The inclusion of a citation does not, by itself, make the reproduction of lengthy passages in identical or closely similar language acceptable.

Authors should consult the BMIJ Plagiarism and Similarity Screening Policy for detailed criteria and implementation principles.

Journal Scope and Scientific Adequacy

A manuscript must be directly related to at least one field of business and management covered by the aims and scope of BMIJ.

Scientific adequacy is assessed according to the following criteria:

• The research problem is clearly defined and adequately justified.

• The study addresses an original research question, finding, or scholarly assessment.

• The contribution to the literature is explicitly stated.

• The literature review is adequate, current, and relevant to the research question.

• The research questions or hypotheses are grounded in an appropriate theoretical framework.

• The research method is consistent with the study’s objectives and research questions.

• The study population, sample, and sampling method are clearly described.

• The validity and reliability of the data collection instruments are demonstrated.

• Quantitative analyses are appropriate for the data structure and research model.

• Qualitative analysis procedures are transparent, traceable, and scientifically adequate.

• The findings are supported by tables, figures, and analysis outputs.

• The discussion and conclusions are based on the reported findings.

• The limitations of the study are clearly acknowledged.

• The conclusions are not generalised beyond the scope supported by the research design and data.

Manuscripts may not be forwarded for peer review if they lack a clearly defined research question, fail to meet fundamental methodological standards, or present conclusions that cannot reasonably be derived from the reported data.

Authors should consult the BMIJ Manuscript Submission Guide for the scientific and formal requirements considered during the preliminary assessment.

Reference and Citation Verification

All in-text citations must have corresponding entries in the reference list, and every work included in the reference list must be cited in the manuscript.

When necessary, the editorial office may verify each source individually, including:

• Author or institutional author

• Publication year

• Title of the article, book, or chapter

• Journal or publisher name

• Volume and issue information

• Page range

• DOI or other persistent identifier

• Consistency between the in-text citation and the reference entry

• Whether the cited work has been published and is accessible

Non-existent publications, fabricated DOIs, DOIs belonging to different publications, incorrect author or journal information, and sources that cannot be verified are treated as concerns regarding scholarly reliability.

An inability to verify a source does not automatically establish that the source is fabricated. Nevertheless, authors are responsible for providing accurate and accessible bibliographic information. The editorial office may request clarification or supporting documentation for sources that cannot be verified.

In-text citations and the reference list must comply with the BMIJ APA 7 Guidelines.

Ethics Committee Approval and Research Ethics

Whether ethics committee approval is required is assessed according to the nature of the research.

As a general rule, ethics committee approval is required for studies involving:

• Surveys and scale administration

• Interviews

• Focus groups

• Experimental research

• Data collection from human participants

• Participant observation

• Personal or sensitive data

• Health-related data

• The scientific use of human participants or animals

• Retrospective research involving personal data

For studies requiring ethics committee approval, the name of the committee, the approval date, and the decision or reference number must be stated in the Methods section and in the relevant declaration section of the manuscript. The ethics committee approval document must be uploaded as a separate file during submission.

The study title, principal researcher, institution, committee name, approval date, and decision number appearing in the approval document must be consistent with the information provided in the manuscript. The document must cover the submitted research and the data collection method employed.

Where ethics committee approval is not required, the reason must be clearly stated in the Methods section.

Authors should consult the BMIJ Ethics Rules for further information.

Ethics Committee Approval Date and Data Collection Period

For research requiring ethics committee approval, approval must be obtained before data collection begins. The data collection start date must not precede the ethics committee approval date.

Authors must clearly state the date or period of data collection in the Methods section. The manuscript must make it possible to determine when surveys, interviews, observations, experiments, and other forms of human-participant data collection were conducted.

Where different data collection dates are reported in different parts of the manuscript, these dates must be mutually consistent. Data collection conducted before ethics committee approval is treated as a serious ethical concern. Ethics approval obtained retrospectively does not remedy data collection that was undertaken before approval.

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Authors who have used ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, Gemini, or other generative artificial intelligence tools must disclose such use transparently.

The disclosure must identify:

• The name and, where possible, the version of the tool

• The purpose for which the tool was used

• The sections or stages of the manuscript covered by its use

• How the generated content was reviewed and verified by the authors

Generative AI tools may not be listed as authors. The generation of scientific conclusions solely by artificial intelligence, the use of unverified information or references, and the creation of scholarly content without human oversight are not acceptable.

Authors are responsible for verifying the existence and bibliographic accuracy of all sources suggested by artificial intelligence. The authors retain full scholarly responsibility for all information, analyses, interpretations, and conclusions presented in the manuscript.

Authors should consult the BMIJ Artificial Intelligence Use Policy for detailed requirements.

Consistency Between the Manuscript Data and Analyses

Where deemed necessary, the editorial office may request anonymised datasets, analysis files, software outputs, code, interview protocols, or other research documentation.

The following aspects may be cross-checked against the submitted documents:

• Consistency of the reported sample size with the dataset

• Variable names and measurement procedures

• Appropriateness of the analyses for the research model

• Coefficients, standard errors, significance values, confidence intervals, R² values, and numbers of observations

• Consistency between the values reported in tables and the analysis outputs

• Decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of hypotheses

• Coding procedures, theme development, and participant statements in qualitative studies

• Whether the interpretations presented in the manuscript are supported by the actual analysis results

Where the data or analysis files required for assessment are not provided, external verification cannot be undertaken. In such cases, the editorial office may request additional documentation or clarification regarding findings that cannot be verified.

Every manuscript must include a Data Availability Statement explaining the accessibility status of the research data. Data may be deposited in an open repository, made available upon reasonable request, or withheld because of ethical, legal, commercial, or confidentiality restrictions. Where data cannot be shared, the reason must be clearly stated.

Further information is available in the BMIJ Research Data Policy.

Internal Consistency of the Manuscript

All sections of the manuscript must be mutually consistent. The preliminary assessment considers, in particular:

• Consistency between the Turkish and English abstracts

• Alignment among the purpose, method, findings, and conclusions

• Alignment of the analyses with the research questions or hypotheses

• Sequential numbering of tables and figures

• Availability of all tables and figures cited in the text

• Consistency of numerical values between the main text and tables

• Accurate reporting of hypothesis-testing results

• Consistency among the findings, discussion, and conclusion sections

• Correspondence between the Turkish and English titles, abstracts, and keywords

• Grammar, spelling, and appropriate use of academic terminology

Conflicting numerical values, references to non-existent tables or figures, and interpretations that are inconsistent with the analysis results may lead to a request for revision.

Formatting Requirements and Submission File

The manuscript must be prepared in Microsoft Word format using the current BMIJ manuscript template. Titles, abstracts, keywords, JEL codes, tables, figures, references, page layout, and typography must comply with the template.

Because BMIJ applies double-blind peer review, the manuscript file submitted for evaluation must not contain any information that could reveal the authors’ identities, including names, institutional affiliations, email addresses, ORCID identifiers, acknowledgements, or similar details. Author information must be entered only in the relevant fields of the journal’s submission system.

Authors should consult the BMIJ Submission Requirements together with the current manuscript template when preparing their submission.

Preliminary Assessment Outcomes

One of the following decisions is issued following the preliminary assessment:

Eligible for Peer Review

The manuscript satisfies the preliminary assessment criteria and may proceed to double-blind peer review.

Eligible for Peer Review Following Preliminary Revisions

The manuscript contains remediable scientific, ethical, bibliographic, linguistic, or formatting deficiencies. It will be reassessed after the requested revisions have been completed.

Rejected at the Preliminary Assessment Stage

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it falls outside the journal’s scope, fails to meet fundamental standards of scientific adequacy, or contains ethical, methodological, or scholarly reliability problems that cannot be remedied through preliminary revision.

Compliance with the similarity thresholds does not necessarily mean that a manuscript is scientifically adequate or eligible for peer review. Ethical violations, data manipulation, fabricated references, serious methodological errors, or material inconsistencies between the manuscript and the analysis results may constitute grounds for rejection irrespective of the assessment score.

Preliminary Assessment Scoring

The editorial office may use the following 100-point framework to support the scientific preliminary assessment:

Assessment area	Maximum score
Topic and originality	15
Literature review and theoretical framework	15
Methodology and data	20
Analyses and findings	20
Discussion and conclusion	10
References and scholarly reliability	10
Compliance with ethical and publication standards	10
Total	100

The score supports editorial judgement but does not, on its own, confer eligibility for peer review or acceptance for publication.

Pre-Submission Checklist for Authors

Before completing your submission, please ensure that:

• The manuscript falls within the aims and scope of BMIJ.

• The current BMIJ manuscript template has been used.

• All author-identifying information has been removed from the blind-review file.

• The purpose, method, findings, and conclusions are mutually consistent.

• Every table and figure is cited in the text.

• Every in-text citation has a corresponding reference-list entry.

• Every work in the reference list is cited in the manuscript.

• Author names, publication years, journal details, page ranges, and DOI information have been verified.

• The overall similarity score is 20% or lower, excluding the reference list.

• Similarity attributable to any single source does not exceed 3%.

• The need for ethics committee approval has been assessed and the required documentation has been uploaded.

• Data collection was conducted after ethics committee approval.

• The data collection dates are reported in the Methods section.

• Informed consent and any required institutional permissions are reported.

• Where generative AI was used, the tool, purpose, and scope of use are disclosed.

• Data availability, author contributions, funding, and conflicts of interest are declared.

• The dataset and analysis outputs can be provided to the editorial office where required.

• The language and academic style of the manuscript have been carefully reviewed.

Authors must comply with the BMIJ policies and author guidelines in force at the time of submission. The editorial office may request additional information, documentation, or revisions during the preliminary assessment.