Peer Review Policy & Note to Reviewers

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The articles sent to the journal are sent to the referees after they pass the editorial pre-control evaluations such as compliance with journal writing rules, spelling-writing errors, statistics and language evaluation, plagiarism screening. Articles pass the "Double-Blind Referee Review". Each article is sent to 2 referees, if both referees agree, the article is accepted for publication. If both referees give refusal to the article, the article is rejected. If one of the referees accepts an objection, the article is sent to a referee and accepted or rejected according to his decision. It is aimed that all these processes should not exceed 3 months (to be completed within 1 month as much as possible). Therefore, the quick return of the relevant author after the revision is important.

The information requested to be filled in the Article Evaluation Form is transmitted to the author in accordance with our double-blind review policy (Referee information is not shared with the author, but the referee corresponds with the editor). The document is translated into anonymous user by preventing you from appearing as a document owner while conveying your suggestions / questions with the "Word Description / Adding Comments" feature in the article word file. Due to the DergiPark software, the Article Evaluation Form cannot be accessed from Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge search engines. For this reason, use Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox etc. You will be able to view this form using the search engines. You can only send the points you want the Editor to see to the editor in the system from the message area. In the “Recommendation” section: You are expected to choose one of the options such as Acceptance, Rejection, Major Revision and Minor Revision. After your Major or Minor Revision advice, the article will be sent to the author. The corrected version of the author will be offered to you to reconsider. The Editor is responsible for the final decision of acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. The Editor's decision is final.

The duration of the review process is dependent on reviewers’ responses. IJATE expects review processing might last for approximately 6-12 months. However, please note that the review process can take more time depending on the number of rounds the reviews need to take place.


IJATE's ETHICAL POLICIES FOR REVIEWERS

Conflict of Interest Statement: If you notice a conflict of interest after the review of the referee has started, inform the editor immediately so that another referee can be appointed to evaluate the article.

Double Blind Status: The referee ID is not shared with the author. To help protect your identity, do not include your name in your evaluation. Also, please do not contact the author if you know. Authors should also be confidential from the referees during the evaluation process. If the manuscript sent to the referee (s) is not blind, the referee(s) should inform the editorial office and not evaluate this manuscript. After such an information received by the editorial office, appropriate blind review will be provided and a different referee will be assigned to the manuscript.

Privacy Policy: The referee must protect confidentiality regarding the existence and subject of the article. It is not appropriate to share the article with others or discuss its details with others before it is published. If a referee asks a colleague for assistance with the evaluation, the person who assisted the referee should also maintain confidentiality, and the editor should be informed that an additional person has taken part in the evaluation.

Referee Attitude: As stated in the IJATE’s website on Ethical Principles and Publication Policy section, “ Referees should not use the information in the study for their own benefit prior to the publication of the article”.

Reporting Ethical Concerns: Referees also have the responsibility to report any ethical concerns, including, but not limited to, ethical concerns about copying, cheating, suspected plagiarism, or the misuse of/potential harm to humans or animals in research.

Fraud: It can be very difficult to detect a deceptive fraud, but if you think the findings in a manuscript is wrong, contact with the editor.

Writing the Review Result: Dear journal referee, please submit your comments, suggestions, and opinions on the text of the article using track changes, in addition to the relevant comment boxes in the online evaluation form.