Writing and publication policies
EDUCATIONE uses double-blind peer review technique. The studies submitted to the EDUCATIONE should not have been previously published and should not be in the process of evaluation in another journal. The authors assume full responsibility for this issue.
The submissions are reviewed by the editorial board in terms of form and shape properties. While the studies that do not possess the requisite qualification are sent back to authors, the evaluation process is started for the ones approved by the editorial board.
The journal also adopts an external review process which is a critical step in the publication of academic journals. After an author submits their work, the manuscript is reviewed by a team of experts in the field who are not affiliated with the journal. This external review process is important because it ensures that the research is of high quality and meets the standards of the academic community. Typically, reviewers provide feedback on the content, methodology, and significance of the research, and the author is given an opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript based on this feedback. The external review process is conducted anonymously, ensuring impartiality and objectivity.
The studies which are in the process of evaluation are sent to at least two independent reviewers in the relevant field. While assigning reviewers, both double-blind review and external review process are followed. Special attention is paid to the fact that the reviewers are not from the same institution as the author (s) who submitted the study.In line with the double-blind peer review, the identities of the reviewers and the author (s) are hidden from each other. Signs that may reveal the identity of the reviewer or author (s) are hidden. The documents submitted by the author (s) and reviewers are subject to preliminary review by the editorial board and the traces on the documents are removed.
After the Article Evaluation Process, the studies are;
- published if both reviewers report "CAN BE PUBLISHED".
- sent back to authors for making revisions stated by reviewer/s if one or both of the reviewers report "CAN BE PUBLISHED WITH REVISION".
- sent to the third reviewer if one of the reviewers reports "CAN NOT BE PUBLISHED" and evaluation process is carried out based on the report of this reviewer.
Publication Ethics Statement
All submitted articles should be original, unpublished, and not under consideration for review in any other journal. Each article is subject to a double-blind peer review process by at least two referees and one of the editors. Plagiarism, duplication, fake authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, article slicing, slicing publication, copyright infringement, and hiding conflicts of interest are considered unethical behaviors.
All articles that do not comply with accepted ethical standards will be removed from publication. This includes articles that contain possible irregularities or inappropriateness that are detected after publication.
Research Ethics
The journal adheres to the highest standards of research ethics and adopts the international research ethics principles described below. The authors are responsible for ensuring that their articles comply with ethical rules.
The principles of integrity, quality, and transparency should be ensured in the design, review, and implementation of research.
The research team and participants should be fully informed about the purpose, methods, and potential uses of the research, as well as the requirements and risks of participating in the research.
The confidentiality of information provided by research participants and the privacy of respondents should be ensured. The research should be designed to protect the autonomy and dignity of research participants.
Research participants should voluntarily participate in the research and should not be under any coercion.
Participants should not be harmed. The research should be planned in a way that does not put participants at risk.
Independence in research should be clearly stated, and conflicts of interest should be disclosed if any exist.
In experimental studies, written informed consent should be obtained from participants who decide to participate in the research. The legal guardian's consent should be obtained for children, wards, or those with certified mental illness.
If the study is to be conducted in any institution or organization, approval should be obtained from that institution or organization.
In studies involving human subjects, the "method" section should indicate that "informed consent" was obtained from participants and that ethical approval was obtained from the institution where the research was conducted.
Author Responsibility
The scientific and ethical compliance of articles is the responsibility of the authors. The author must ensure that the article is original, has not been previously published elsewhere, and is not under consideration for publication in another language elsewhere. Copyright laws and agreements should be respected in practice. Copyrighted materials (such as tables, figures, or extensive quotations) should be used with necessary permission and acknowledgement. The works or resources of other authors or contributors should be appropriately used and cited in references.
All authors should have a direct academic and scientific contribution to the submitted article, in this context, an "author" is seen as someone who has made a significant contribution to the conceptualization and design of a published research, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, or has played a role in writing or critically reviewing its content. Other conditions for being an author are planning, executing, and/or revising the work in the article. Funding, data collection, or general supervision of the research group alone does not entitle to authorship. All individuals shown as authors must meet all the criteria mentioned, and any individual who meets the above criteria may be shown as an author. The order of author names should be a joint decision made in common. All authors must indicate their authorship ranking signed in the Copyright Agreement Form.
All individuals who do not meet sufficient criteria for authorship but have contributed to the work should be listed in the "acknowledgments/information" section. Examples of these individuals may include those who have provided only technical support, assisted in writing, or provided general support or financial and material support.
All authors must declare any financial relationships, conflicts of interest, and competing interests that may potentially affect the results or scientific evaluation of the research. If an author detects a significant error or mistake in their published article, they are responsible for immediately contacting the editor and collaborating on correction or retraction.
Editor and Reviewer Responsibilities
The Editor in Chief is responsible for overseeing the publication process and ensuring that all submitted articles undergo a fair and impartial double-blind peer-review process, regardless of the authors' ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religious beliefs, and political philosophy. The Editor in Chief is also responsible for ensuring the confidentiality of all information related to submitted articles until publication is guaranteed, and for the overall content and quality of the publication. If necessary, the Editor in Chief must publish an erratum or make a correction.
The Editor in Chief must ensure that conflicts of interest among authors, editors, and reviewers are avoided. They have the authority to appoint reviewers and are responsible for making the final decision regarding the articles to be published in the journal.
Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest related to the research, authors, and/or financial supporters of the research. They must provide an unbiased judgment after their evaluation and ensure the confidentiality of all information related to the submitted articles. If a reviewer notices any copyright infringement or plagiarism, they must report it to the Editor in Chief. If a reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate an article or cannot provide a timely response, they should inform the Editor in Chief and request to be excluded from the reviewing process.
During the evaluation process, the Editor in Chief must clearly state that the articles under review are the authors' property, and this is a privileged communication. Reviewers and members of the editorial board cannot discuss the articles with others. Reviewers' identities must be kept confidential. In some cases, with the Editor in Chief's decision, the comments of relevant reviewers on an article can be sent to other reviewers who have evaluated the same article to enlighten them during the process.
December 29, 2025
Page
1-31
