Manuscripts are subject to a fully confidential evaluation process. The identities of reviewers remain confidential and are known only to the editors. Submissions are evaluated impartially, without regard to the authors' race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, political orientation, age, or reputation.

Reviewers are selected from among experts in the fields addressed by the manuscripts. Each reviewer is expected to complete an evaluation form and, if necessary, prepare a separate report. Individuals who may have a conflict of interest regarding a manuscript's topic cannot review it (e.g., those who have collaborated with an author, are employed by or are a competitor of the institution related to the work, hold specific political/ideological views, or are otherwise unable to provide an objective assessment). Authors must inform the editorial board of any potential conflict of interest before the manuscript is sent for review.

Reviewer evaluations are expected to be professional, honest, thoughtful, timely, and constructive.

Key elements expected for a high-quality review include:

Reviewers should primarily assess the work from a methodological standpoint.

Reviewers should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, irrespective of its results.

Reviewers should state whether the work raises any ethical concerns or fails to meet scientific standards.

Reviewers should provide constructive suggestions to help the author improve the work. Criticisms should be professional and aimed at enhancing the manuscript.

The evaluation should provide the editor with a clear perspective and sufficient content to make a decision regarding acceptance or revision.

Reviewers are expected to identify uncited relevant work and indicate which elements of the manuscript are derived from other sources.

Reviewers must not contact the author directly. The editor coordinates all communication.

Reviewers invited to evaluate a manuscript are expected to accept or decline the invitation within 7 days. If no response is received, the invitation is considered declined, and a new reviewer will be assigned.

Reviewers who accept the invitation are expected to submit their review within 15 days of acceptance. An extension of 7 days may be granted upon request. If no extension is requested and the review is not submitted, a new reviewer will be assigned.

Confidentiality

Information and ideas obtained during the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Reviewers must not share the manuscript with colleagues without explicit written permission from the editor.

Without the authors' explicit permission, reviewers and editors must not use data, interpretations, or topics from the manuscript before publication for professional or personal gain, nor write editorials or commentaries about it.

Any conflicts of interest must be reported to the editorial board.

Reviewers should inform the editor if they are unable to review a manuscript or can only do so with a delay.

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript objectively, provide clear, unbiased, and constructive criticism, and avoid personal remarks. Comments should be written in a way that allows authors to understand the basis for the observations and judgments.

Our reviewers should follow the steps below to evaluate a manuscript assigned via the system:

Log in to the DergiPark panel with your username and password.

Select "İstanbul 29 Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi" from the list of journals in your panel.

Click on the "New Invitation" tab in the reviewer panel to access the assigned manuscript. (You can also use the link provided in the invitation email.)

Accept the review invitation.

Click the "Show" button next to the relevant manuscript to access its details.

Click the "Files" tab and download the manuscript by clicking the "Download" icon next to the file under "Article Files."

Record your evaluation notes on the manuscript. Use the "Track Changes" feature in Microsoft Word (under the "Review" tab). Use the "New Comment" feature to add specific notes.

After completing your review, rename the file to "Reviewer Report." Then, remove all personal metadata from the file (via File > Info > Check for Issues > Inspect Document > Inspect > Remove All for Document Properties and Personal Information). This is crucial for maintaining anonymity.

Return to the manuscript page in the system, go to the "Files" tab, and use the "Add New File" button to upload your report.

Click the "Evaluation" tab on the manuscript page, fill out the "Article/Reviewer Evaluation Form" at the bottom of the page, and click "Submit Evaluation" to complete the process. A confirmation message "Your transaction has been completed successfully" should appear. If not, check for any missing required fields in the form.

Note on recommendations in the form:

Major Revision: "I wish to see the manuscript again after the suggested revisions are made."

Minor Revision: "I suggest some revisions but do not need to see the manuscript again afterward."

Accept: "No revisions are suggested; the manuscript is acceptable for publication in its current form." If you recommend "Major Revision," you will be reassigned to review the revised manuscript, repeating the process described above.