To review a submitted article, follow these steps:
- Log in with your ID and password.
- Access the International Journal of Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language (IJOTFL) Journal Panel from the My Journals section.
- Log in to the Reviewer Panel.
- Click on the title of the article you will be assigned for review in the new invitation section.
- You will be prompted to accept or reject the review.
- To accept the review, please click the "Accept Review" button in the green area.
- After accepting the review, you will see the full article in the "Documents" section.
- After reviewing the article, please complete the review form in the "Reviews" section. Upload the review file, if applicable.
- Finally, click the "Submit Review" button on the right side of the page.
Peer Review Processes
At IJOTFL, reviewers are selected from experts in the topics covered in the articles. All selected reviewers are informed about the responsibilities of reviewers and IJOTFL's ethical principles, article evaluation criteria, and procedure.
- After accepting peer review in the system, reviewers must consider the "Reviewer's Responsibilities and Ethical Principles" and "Review Processes."
- Reviewers should only accept review of articles for which they possess the necessary expertise to conduct a proper review, can respect the confidentiality of blind peer review, and can maintain confidentiality of the article's details.
- Reviewers invited to review a manuscript are expected to inform their decision to accept or reject the review within 7 days. A reviewer who does not make a decision by the end of this period is considered to have rejected the review, and the editor will appoint a new reviewer. Reviewers who accept the review are expected to submit their comments within 15 days of the invitation. A reviewer who does not complete the review process within this period will be granted an extension of up to 7 days upon request. If the reviewer does not request an extension, a new reviewer may be appointed.
- Each reviewer who accepts the review invitation is asked to complete a review form and provide concrete justifications for their acceptance or rejection of the article.
In this review form, reviewers are expected to express their opinions on the following topics:
- Relevance of the submission title to the content
- Abstract (in both languages)
- Keywords (in both languages)
- Problem statement
- Gaps in the literature and rationale for conducting the study
- Research objectives
- Sampling method and characteristics of the sample/study group
- Characteristics, reliability, and validity of the data collection instrument(s)
- Research design and variables
- Findings
- Tables and figures
- Support of research findings with literature
- Findings, limitations, and recommendations for future studies
- Conclusion
- Relevance of the topic
- Language of the article
- Comprehensiveness of the topic in the article
- References used
- Theoretical and/or practical contribution of the article
- Originality and timeliness of the article
Reviewers provide their opinions on all of these topics by selecting one of the following options: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Poor. Reviewers do not need to approve all of these topics for publication. However, in the review form, suggestions regarding the sections rated as Poor and Poor, as well as any other suggestions for the author, should be included in the "Note to Author" section.
After completing this form, reviewers can make the following decisions:
- Review the Article (Major Review)
- Review the Article (Minor Review).
- Reject.
- Accept.
IJOTFL conducts its article review process using a double-blind review policy. This means that the reviewers of an article cannot learn the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) cannot learn the identity of the reviewer(s). If one reviewer's evaluation report is positive and the other is negative, the article is sent to a third reviewer. A single referee evaluation report is sufficient for a paper to be rejected, but at least two referee evaluation reports are required for acceptance. If one referee evaluation report is “Accept” or “Minor Revision” and the other is “Major Revision,” and the editor's opinion supports the acceptance of the article, the manuscript is sent back to the same reviewer after the author makes the corrections. The article is either rejected or sent to a third reviewer, depending on the opinion of the reviewer who issued the “Major Revision” report. The reviewer requesting revisions may request to re-evaluate the article after the revisions. The reviewer is given an additional 15 days for this evaluation.
Reviewers may contact the editor via the DergiPark messages section for further guidance or to report suspected violations. Correspondence here is not visible to authors. Data from articles based on field research or data analysis may be requested by the reviewer from the editor to ensure the analyses in the article are properly examined. The journal editor will communicate with the author on this matter and forward the data to the referee. Referees should have no conflict of interest with the research, authors, and/or research funders. If a conflict of interest is anticipated, the reviewer should contact the editorial board and disclose the potential conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into account in the event of any conflict of interest that may arise. (
https://publicationethics.org/case/conflict-interest).
Referees may not use the data from the articles they review before publication or share this data with others. The names of referees who evaluate articles for the journal are not disclosed/published.