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:

• Relevance of the work to the scope and subject areas of the journal (within the field of Education Sciences and Teacher Training)

• Compliance with the writing guidelines and article template

• Adherence to APA 7 rules for in-text citations and references • Ethical approval document for the study • A document indicating that the similarity rate of the study is not more than 15%, obtained from software such as iThenticate or Turnitin

If any of the above criteria are not met during the pre-review process, the author will be contacted for necessary revisions and completion of deficiencies. 

Evaluation

Manuscripts that pass the pre-review stage can proceed to the evaluation process. At this stage, two referees are selected by the editors who are experts in the focus and scope of the work. All candidate manuscripts go through an external and independent double-blind peer review process. Once the referees have evaluated the candidate manuscript, they provide feedback to the 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 to them. 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.