Guide for Reviewer

To evaluate an article sent from the system, follow the steps below:

• Login with your ID and password.
  
• Enter the Journal Panel of Academia Journal of Educational Research (AJER) from My Journals section.
  
• Log in to the reviewer panel.
  
• Click the title of the article which be appointed for peer review by you from the new invitation section.
  
• Acceptance or denial of the peer review will ask to you in the page that will pop-up.
  
• For the accept of peer review please click the “Accept the Review” that in the green section.
  
• You will see the full article in the “Documents” after accept review.
  
• After reviewing the article, please fill the review form in the “Reviews” section. Upload the review file if there is.
  
• Lastly click the button “Send the Review” that spotting right side of the page.
  

Peer Reviewing Processes

• In the AJER, the referees are selected from among the experts of the subjects covered in the articles. All selected referees are informed about the responsibilities of the referees and the ethical principles, article evaluation criteria and procedure of the AJER.
  
• Reviewer, must take into account after accept peer reviewing on the system “Responsibilities of reviewer and ethical principles to be followed” and “Reviewing Processes”.
  
• Reviewers should only accept reviewing of articles for which they have the necessary expertise to perform an appropriate review, can respect the confidentiality of blind peer review, and keep the details of the article confidential at all times.
  
• Reviewers invited for article review are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the review within 7 days. The reviewer who does not make a decision at the end of this period is deemed to have rejected the review and the editor appoints a new reviewer. The reviewer who accept the review are expected to express their opinions within 15 days from the date of invitation acceptance. An additional period of up to 7 days is given to the referee who does not complete the review process within this period, if the reviewer requests. If the referee does not request additional time, a new referee can be appointed.
  
• Each reviewer who accepts the invitation to review is asked to fill in a review form and declare the acceptance or rejection opinions about the article by providing concrete reasons.
  

In the evaluation form, referees are expected to express their opinions on the following issues:

1. Is the title of the article appropriate for the study?
   
2. Does the abstract cover the purpose of the study, the findings obtained according to the applied method, and the recommendations?
   
3. Are the Turkish and English abstracts compatible?
   
4. Are the sources used in the article sufficiently up-to-date and relevant to the subject of the study?
   
5. Have the subject and purpose of the study been sufficiently emphasized in the introduction section?
   
6. Are the research method or methods used appropriate for the subject of the study?
   
7. Have the research findings been explained correctly according to the method or methods followed?
   
8. Have the Figures and Tables been arranged in an appropriate and understandable manner according to the research data?
   
9. Have the research findings been discussed sufficiently?
   
10. Has the results section been presented differently from the findings (in a way that will not be repeated)?
    
11. Has the study been presented in a fluent and understandable language?
    
12. Does the study have original value in terms of its contribution to science?
    

The referees express their opinions on all of the above issues. They can also submit suggestions to the Editor or Author in the “Your Comments to the Editor” and “Your Suggestions to the Author” sections.

After completing this form, the referees can take the following decisions:

• Revise Manuscript (Major Revision)
  
• Revise Manuscript (Minor Revision).
  
• Reject.
  
• Accept.

• In AJER, the process is managed by appointing two referees from outside the editorial board.
  
• If one of the referee reports is positive and the other is negative, the article is sent to a third referee.
  
• A single referee report is sufficient for the rejection of articles.
  
• If one of the referee reports is “Acceptance” or “Minor Revision” and the other is “Major Revision” and the editor’s opinion is in favor of accepting the article, the study is sent back to the same referee after the author makes the corrections. Depending on the opinion of the referee with the Major Revision report, the article is rejected or sent to a third referee.
  
• The referee requesting revision may request that the article be re-evaluated after the revision. The referee is given an additional 15 days for this evaluation.
  
• Referees can contact the editor via the DergiPark messages section to receive further guidance or to convey any suspicions of violations. The correspondence here is not visible to the authors.
  
• Data for articles based on field research or data analysis may be requested from the editor by the referee in order for the analyses in the article to be evaluated healthily. The journal editor also contacts the author on this matter and forwards the data to the referee.
  
• Referees should not have any conflict of interest regarding the research, authors and/or research funders. If a conflict of interest is anticipated, the referee should contact the editorial board and state a possible conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into consideration in possible conflicts of interest. (https://publicationethics.org/case/conflict-interest)
  
• Referees cannot benefit from the data of the articles they review before publication or share this data with others.
  
• The names of the referees who evaluate the journal are not disclosed/published.