Reviewer Guidelines

Last updated: 10 August 2026

Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of the Institute of Educational Sciences (MAKU-EBED) uses double-anonymous peer review. Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers; reviewers from different institutions are preferred whenever possible. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the final decision rests with the editor.

1. Before accepting an invitation

• Decline if the manuscript falls outside your expertise or you cannot complete the review within the stated deadline.
• Disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest involving the authors, institutions, funders, or subject matter, and do not accept the invitation.
• The manuscript and all supplementary files are confidential. Do not share them, retain them outside secure personal devices/accounts, or upload them to third-party systems or generative AI tools.
• Do not attempt to identify the authors. If you learn an author’s identity inadvertently, notify the editor.

2. Scientific evaluation criteria

1. Scope, research question, and originality: Fit with the journal, clarity and significance of the problem, originality, and contribution to educational sciences.
2. Literature review and theoretical framework: Critical synthesis of relevant and current sources, coherence of the framework, and justification of the research gap.
3. Methodology: Design, participants/sample, instruments and data sources, procedure, analysis, validity/reliability or trustworthiness, and reproducibility. For review articles, assess the transparency of the search, selection/exclusion, and synthesis methods.
4. Findings, analysis, discussion, and conclusions: Appropriateness and transparency of analysis, support for claims, engagement with the literature, response to the research question, and limitations.
5. Ethics, research integrity, and transparency: Ethics approval/consent where required, conflict and funding disclosures, data transparency, and concerns about plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or inappropriate AI use.
6. Language, structure, tables/figures, and references: Clarity, academic language, organization, functional presentation of visual material, citations, and reference-list consistency.

3. Preparing the review report

• Rate all six criteria in the form. Ratings do not replace a reasoned scientific report.
• The Note to Author is mandatory and must contain at least 500 characters. Provide a brief overall assessment, identify strengths, and give numbered revision requests supported by clear reasons.
• A report consisting only of “accept/reject,” scores, or checked boxes is insufficient and may be returned for completion.
• Be specific, constructive, and respectful. Avoid personal remarks and cite page/section numbers whenever possible.
• Do not include your name, affiliation, or wording that could reveal your identity in author-visible comments.

4. Confidential note to the editor and ethical concerns

Report suspected plagiarism, fabrication/falsification, missing ethics approval, duplicate publication, authorship problems, or conflicts of interest in the Note to Editor, with reasons, page numbers, and evidence where available. Do not contact the authors directly. Confidential comments should not contradict the scientific advice given to the authors.

5. Recommendation categories

• Accept: No change affecting the scientific content is required.
• Minor revision: Limited, verifiable corrections are sufficient.
• Major revision: Substantial changes to the method, analysis, framework, or interpretation are required.
• Reject: Fundamental problems cannot reasonably be remedied by revision, or the work is outside the journal’s scope.

Your recommendation must be consistent with the reasons in your report. The editor makes the final publication decision.

6. Reviewing a revision

When a revised manuscript is returned, check each item in the author response and its corresponding change in the manuscript. State clearly which major concerns remain. Add new requests only when scientifically necessary.

7. Confidentiality and record retention

Review reports, decision correspondence, and process records are retained for at least five years after publication. Reviewer names, affiliations, and evaluation dates remain traceable in editorial records, while reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors or the public. No fee is charged or paid for peer review.

8. Completing the form

1. Answer all six scientific criteria.
2. Write a reasoned, numbered Note to Author of at least 500 characters.
3. Add a confidential Note to Editor where necessary.
4. Select Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject and submit the form.

Basis: These guidelines follow the journal’s Ethical Principles and Publication Policy and the TR Dizin Journal Evaluation Criteria.