Article Evaluation Process

Original research articles and systematic reviews submitted to the Bartın University Journal of Educational Research (BUJER) are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review system in accordance with the principles of scientific quality, impartiality, confidentiality, and editorial independence. Each original research article and systematic review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

1. Editorial Preliminary Review

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are first subjected to a preliminary review by the editorial team. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated in terms of:

• compliance with the journal’s aims and scope,

• compliance with the author guidelines,

• scientific quality and originality,

• appropriateness of the research methodology,

• completeness of ethical declarations,

• similarity status,

• citation and referencing style, and

• compliance with file submission requirements.

Manuscripts are screened for similarity using iThenticate software. Manuscripts found unsuitable during the preliminary review may be returned to the authors or rejected without being sent for peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Each original research article and systematic review that successfully passes the preliminary review is sent to at least two independent reviewers, taking into consideration the subject matter of the manuscript and the reviewers’ areas of scientific expertise.

Reviewers are selected by the editorial team based on their scientific expertise in the relevant field. Individuals affiliated with the same institution as the authors are not appointed as reviewers. The editorial team seeks to ensure that there are no institutional, academic, personal, or financial conflicts of interest between the authors and reviewers.

A double-blind peer-review process is applied; the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

3. Management of Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must not have any existing or potential conflict of interest concerning the manuscript they are evaluating. Reviewers who believe that a personal, academic, institutional, financial, or other conflict of interest exists must decline the review invitation or withdraw from the evaluation process.

Editors may likewise not participate in the evaluation or decision-making process for manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.

4. Peer Review and Revision

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to scientific, objective, and reasoned criteria. Reviewer comments and recommendations are communicated to the authors through the editorial team.

If revisions are requested by the reviewers or the editorial team, authors are expected to respond to the comments in a scientific, reasoned, and constructive manner and to make the necessary revisions.

If one reviewer provides a positive opinion and the other provides a negative opinion, the manuscript may be sent to a third independent reviewer, or an editorial decision may be made by taking into account the scientific reasoning presented in the reviewer reports.

5. Final Decision

Reviewer reports and editorial evaluation form the basis of the publication decision. The scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance, contribution to the journal’s aims and scope, and reviewer evaluations are considered together.

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board. Although reviewer opinions provide the basis for the scientific evaluation, the final authority regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board.

6. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors and Individuals Affiliated with the Journal

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by an editor, field editor, Editorial Board member, reviewer, Guest Editor, or any other individual with an editorial relationship with the journal are subject to the same scientific and ethical evaluation criteria as all other manuscripts.

In such cases, the individual concerned is excluded from all stages of reviewer selection, evaluation, and the publication decision. The manuscript is handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest and is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. The individual concerned may not participate in any way in the evaluation or decision-making process concerning their own manuscript.

7. Confidentiality and Editorial Impartiality

Manuscripts under evaluation, reviewer reports, editorial decisions, and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential. Editors, reviewers, and Editorial Board members may not disclose such information to unauthorized third parties or use it for personal, academic, or commercial benefit.

All evaluation and publication decisions are made solely on the basis of scientific and ethical criteria, independently of the authors’ identity, institutional affiliation, academic title, or other personal characteristics.