Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Research Referee Guide

The Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Research (JIER) is a peer-reviewed journal that includes compilations, translations, and original articles, particularly focusing on both quantitative and qualitative research within the field of educational sciences, or research utilizing both methodologies. The journal is published three times a year (April, August, and December). Articles may be submitted in Turkish or English. The journal's objective is to contribute to the educational sciences literature by publishing scientifically valuable, original, and ethical studies. The referee guide has been prepared to support the development of academic work in line with these principles and to ensure a high-quality evaluation process for submitted articles.
The JIER Journal is an internationally refereed journal published three times a year. It is managed by an independent editorial team.

Publication Principles
The JIER Journal publishes studies that adhere to the following principles:
• Studies utilizing quantitative, qualitative, single-subject, or mixed research designs in the field of education.
• Literature reviews, meta-analyses, or meta-synthesis studies that provide a comprehensive evaluation of recent educational research.
• Studies proposing practical model suggestions for education, or other similar original contributions.

Evaluation and Publication Process for Submitted Articles
Field Editor Evaluation
All submitted studies are initially reviewed by the editor, followed by evaluation by field editors concerning their purpose, subject, content, presentation style, and adherence to the journal's writing guidelines.
Only studies that meet the preliminary evaluation criteria are forwarded to referees.
If necessary, the editor may seek expert opinions before sending the study to referees, ensuring that author information remains confidential. The editor may base their decision on these expert opinions.

Editorial Preliminary Evaluation Criteria
For quantitative studies:

• Studies that involve a single continuous variable or two continuous variables and rely primarily on descriptive statistics (frequency, percentage, difference, and relationship statistics) will be evaluated according to the scope of the study.
• Priority is given to studies using advanced statistical methods such as single or multiple regression, path analysis, or cluster analysis.

For studies developing measurement tools:
• Studies focused solely on the development of measurement tools will be evaluated based on factors like the originality and scope of the tool, the nature of the sample group, and the validity and reliability processes.
• Priority is given to studies that apply the developed measurement tool within research.

For experimental studies:
Priority is given to experimental studies supported by qualitative data.

For qualitative studies:

It is essential for qualitative studies to meet the validity and reliability requirements of the research process, with data analyzed in depth.

For descriptive/theoretical studies:
The journal prioritizes analytical studies that identify core problems in educational sciences and propose solutions. Studies in this category should not merely be book chapters.

For mixed-method studies:
Studies employing mixed designs have a higher publication rate. However, the use of mixed methodologies and the rationale behind their application must be clearly explained. In mixed-methods research, both the quantitative and qualitative components are evaluated separately and must meet the aforementioned criteria independently.

Additionally:

• Studies based on widely used measurement tools or on extensively studied topics should present new insights or directions.
• For studies based on master’s and doctoral theses:
• It is expected that the entire thesis be presented, with all data used in the research fully reported, without any data slicing.
• For all types of research, the timeliness of the data is emphasized. Research data older than five years is considered outdated.

Referee Evaluation Process
The studies that have been reviewed by the editor and field editors are sent to two referees from the relevant field. If there is a difference of opinion between the referee evaluations, the opinion of a third referee is sought.

Transparency
All correspondence between the author and the editorial team of the JIER Journal, as well as the evaluations by the editor, field editors, and referees, is transparent. The only exceptions are communications between the editor, field editors, and referees regarding a specific study. Additionally, the names of the referees are never disclosed in the reports sent to the authors.
If the referee identifies ethical issues, data integrity concerns, or academic conflicts related to the study, these issues must be communicated to the editor.
In addition to a comprehensive and consistent evaluation process, the editor ensures that referees provide suggestions in their joint reports to enhance the academic contribution to the author. The names of the referees are not disclosed to each other in this case.

Referee Selection
Several factors influence the selection of referees. Experience, publication history, and the editor's previous experiences with the referee are the primary elements considered in the selection process.
The author(s) may request that their work not be sent to specific referees, except in cases of conflicts of interest. See the "Author Rights" section for further details.
The referee list is periodically updated and maintained by the editorial office with each issue.

What Should Be Done by the Referee Who Receives the Work?
The referee should first verify the controls provided to them and ensure that the file can be opened without any issues.
The referee should indicate whether the editor may consider accepting the work, based on the evaluation period and the suitability of the distribution for them.
If the referee is unable to evaluate the work fairly due to a conflict of interest (e.g., personal, institutional, or financial connections), they should notify the editor that they cannot proceed with the evaluation.
The referee should read the editor’s letter sent via email. There may be special requests from the editor (e.g., evaluating only the procedural part of the work).
If the referee received assistance from another individual during the evaluation, this should be disclosed to the editor. The journal editorial office may also consider this person for potential inclusion as a referee, subject to ethical guidelines.

Report Writing
The intensity of referee evaluations should particularly address:
Whether the study offers an original contribution to the field.
Whether the study is up-to-date in its content.
Referees are encouraged to provide critical, unbiased evaluations.
Referees should focus their evaluations on the text itself and refrain from making personal or disparaging comments about the author(s).
Referees should not simply provide affirmative or positive responses to the evaluation criteria, but should also elaborate on any negative findings, explaining the reasons behind them.
Especially in cases where a negative evaluation is given, the referee should offer constructive feedback to improve the work.
The editor reserves the right to intervene in cases of spelling errors, inappropriate statements about the author(s), rude or insulting comments, or factual inaccuracies in the referee reports.

Time
Referees are given a period of 30 days to complete their evaluation.
If the referee is unable to evaluate the work within this period, they should inform the editor as soon as possible, explaining the reason (e.g., requiring additional time or due to the editor’s time constraints). This ensures that the author does not experience unnecessary delays, and sufficient time is provided to the editor to select an alternative referee if necessary.

Conflict of Interest
The author may request that certain individuals be excluded from the review process due to conflicts of interest.
Additionally, the editor will avoid sending work for evaluation to referees with whom the following conditions apply, whenever possible:
Referees with whom the author(s) have previously published joint studies.
Referees who have assisted the author(s) with preliminary readings of the work.
Referees with whom the author(s) have ongoing academic disputes.
Referees who stand to gain financially from the publication of the study.
Referees who are affiliated with the same institution (or the same department at universities) as the author.
The reason not all actions of the editor are publicly disclosed is due to the need to prevent situations that could compromise the fairness of the evaluation process.

Publication Policy and Ethical Issues
Despite the editor's efforts to maintain high standards, ethical violations or issues related to publication policies may occasionally go unnoticed. When expert referees identify such issues, their input is crucial for making necessary adjustments.