Pre-Review

Manuscripts submitted to the Buca Faculty of Education Journal at Dokuz Eylül University undergo a pre-review process conducted by the secretary. This process involves the following considerations:

• Compliance of the manuscript with the journal’s writing guidelines and article template
• Compliance of in-text citations and the reference list with APA 7 guidelines
• Inclusion of an ethics committee approval document
• Submission of a document obtained from plagiarism detection software such as iThenticate or Turnitin showing that the similarity rate does not exceed 15%

If the above requirements are not met during the preliminary evaluation process, the author will be contacted and asked to make the necessary revisions and complete any missing documents.
During the preliminary evaluation process, references, DOI numbers, and citations will be verified. Manuscripts found to contain AI-generated fabricated sources, unverifiable DOIs, false citations, or any form of scientific misconduct will be considered within the scope of ethical violations and will be returned directly without being sent to peer review.

Evaluation

Manuscripts may proceed to the review process after successfully passing the preliminary evaluation stage. At this stage, the field editors first examine the manuscript and assess its compliance with the journal’s scope and subject areas (Educational Sciences and Teacher Education), its scientific quality, and its adherence to fundamental ethical principles. Following these checks, manuscripts deemed appropriate are sent to two reviewers selected in accordance with the focus and scope of the study. All candidate manuscripts are evaluated through an external, independent, double-blind peer-review process. 

Once the referees have evaluated the candidate manuscript, they provide feedback to the field editor. If the referees do not accept the review task or fail to complete their evaluations within the specified time frame, an extension is granted. If they still do not complete the evaluation after the extension, new referees are appointed. Referees enter their evaluations into the system using the "Referee Evaluation Form." Additionally, if deemed necessary, referees can upload documents containing suggestions for revisions and corrections to the manuscript.

The evaluation process progresses based on the decisions of the referees as follows: 

1. Scenario: If both referees recommend minor revisions, the author(s) are informed. In this case, the author(s) are expected to make the necessary revisions to their work. Afterward, if any of the referees wish to review the revised version of the manuscript, the candidate manuscript is sent back to the respective referee(s) for reevaluation. The final decision regarding the candidate manuscript is made by the referee(s), and the results are communicated to the author(s).

2. Scenario: If one referee recommends minor revisions, and the other recommends major revisions, the author(s) are informed. In this case, the author is expected to make revisions to their work. Afterward, if any of the referees wish to review the revised version of the manuscript, the candidate manuscript is sent back to the respective referee(s) for reevaluation. The final decision regarding the candidate manuscript is made by the referee(s), and the results are communicated to the author(s).

3. Scenario: If both referees recommend major revisions, the author(s) are informed. In this case, the author(s) are expected to make the necessary revisions to their work. Afterward, if any of the referees wish to review the revised version of the manuscript, the candidate manuscript is sent back to the respective referee(s) for reevaluation. The final decision regarding the candidate manuscript is made by the referee(s), and the results are communicated to the author(s).

4. Scenario: If one referee recommends minor revisions, and the other recommends rejection, an additional referee is appointed for the evaluation process. a. If the decision of the third referee is either minor or major revisions, the author(s) are informed. In this case, the author(s) are expected to make revisions to their work. Afterward, if any of the referees wish to review the revised version of the manuscript, the candidate manuscript is sent back to the respective referee(s) for reevaluation. The final decision regarding the candidate manuscript is made by the referee(s), and the results are communicated to the author(s). b. If the decision of the third referee is rejection, the candidate manuscript is rejected, and the results are communicated to the author(s).

5. Scenario: If one referee recommends major revisions, and the other recommends rejection, the candidate manuscript is rejected, and the results are communicated to the author(s).

6. Scenario: If both referees recommend rejection, the manuscript is rejected, and the results are communicated to the author(s).

7. Scenario: In case of incompatible reports from the referees, the editorial board may make a final decision regarding the manuscript and  communicate it to the author(s).

The referee decisions for candidate manuscripts fall into four categories:

* I want to see it again with corrections.

* Accepted with minor revisions.

* Accepted.

* Rejected.

With the renewal of the Dergipark system, referees can also provide four different opinions after making their referee decisions:

* Major revision.

* Minor revision.

* Reject.

* Accept.