SUBMISSION

We recommend that you carefully review the Review process page as well as the Author Guidelines. Manuscripts that do not adhere to the Author Guidelines may be returned to the corresponding author for technical revisions before undergoing double-blind peer review or be rejected in case of many violations detected. Authors need to register with the journal prior to submitting all manuscripts online at

https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/joltida or, if already registered, can simply log on and go through the five-step on-line submission process. For questions about submitting a manuscript, contact Editor-in-Chief of JOLTIDA, Dr. Mehmet Akif Ocak, at joltida.info@gmail.com

PREPARATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT

Cover letter. Authors have to submit a cover letter with each manuscript. The cover letter should articulate/confirm the following information:  

• Submitted manuscripts are not considered elsewhere for review process and/or publication. If there is any other submissions related to the submitted manuscript to the other journal(s) that may duplicate any part of the submitted manuscript, author(s) must declare the details about it including supporting statements of the significance and originality of the submitted manuscript.
• There are no other publications related to the submitted manuscript, either in whole or in part, nor have the findings been posted online.
• The author(s) confirms full access to all aspects of the research and writing process, and will take final responsibility for the paper.
• If this article is accepted, it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the copyright-holder.
• Official permission has been obtained for reusing or modifying previously published tables, charts, figures, art works, illustrations, or any other parts of the manuscript as a format of signed letters from the copyright-holders. Authors are responsible for any permission fees.
• Conflicts of interest and authorship. To ensure transparency of real and potential conflicts of interests that may lead to bias or an actual conflict of interest, all possible conflicts of interest in the manuscript – e.g., financial, consultant, institutional and/or other relationships – must be stated. If there is no conflict of interest, this should also be explicitly stated as “none declared.” All sources of funding should be acknowledged in the manuscript as well as cover letter.
• Authors’ names and affiliations do not appear anywhere on the manuscript for ensure scientific integrity.

General Guidelines. Margins should be 1½" on all sides, left justified only. Type must be a minimum of 12-point font size. Double-space throughout and arrange the text in the following sequence: title, affiliation, abstract, main text (figures and tables included), references. Number the pages consecutively, in the upper right-hand corner. Number the lines continuously beginning with the main text. Include a short title in the header of each page, just above the page number.

We encourage authors to use headings and subheadings throughout the manuscript. We also encourage the use of diagrams, tables, charts, illustrations, and photos; however, authors should place them in the body of the text.

Authors are required to follow APA 6.0 style for preparation of their manuscripts. Please strictly follow the requirements written in the APA style and place your title, abstract, key words, main text, tables and graphics (with captions or titles) within the text as this will produce document that is easier to review. Note that a corresponding author information is required on the first page of the template. Authors are also encouraged to write in active voice.

Language. Manuscripts should be written in English language.

Title. Title of the study must not exceed limit of 15 words. Please use Times New Roman, 14 pt for the title.

Author(s). Provide author names, affiliations, and e-mail addresses.

Abstract. The abstract should deliver the essence of the manuscript in a concise or clear academic writing. Please provide a structured abstract using the following headings: Background, Purposes, Methodology/Approach, Findings, and Discussion. The abstract must be Times New Roman 11pt, single line spacing, justified, and should not exceed 250 words. The abstract should not contain any undefined acronym or abbreviation.

Keywords. Include 5 keywords for indexing purposes. Keywords should be written in italic.

Corresponding author. Provide the corresponding author along with; (In footer section of the first page)

• E-mail
• Full mailing address (including phone number)

Main text. The main body of the manuscript should not exceed 10,000 words. Type face should be Times New Roman, 12 pt, and justified. Avoid footers and footnotes except in tables, where needed. Authors should clearly articulate implications and recommendations for educators and scholars in the discussion section.

Headings. 3 levels of headings should be used as the title:

• First level, all capital letters, bold and centered
• The second level, the first letters capitalized, left justified, bold and not left indent. Second level headings should be used appropriately to describe the subtopics of the main topic.
• Third level, the first letters capitalized, bold, italic and left indented 1.25 cm (0.5 inch). Use third level headings to describe subtopics of topics in the second level headings.

Tables. Table titles should be placed at the top of the related table. Table titles should be written in Times New Roman, 12 pt, and justified. All tables should be referenced in the text of the manuscript.

Figures. Figure titles should be placed at the bottom of the related figure. Figure titles should be written in Times New Roman, 12 pt, and justified. All figures should be referenced in the text of the manuscript.

Acknowledgement. This is an optional section. At the end of the paper, before the references, the acknowledgments should be given if there is a source of funding that contributed to the manuscript. You may also recognize other people who made contributions to the manuscript.

References. All the references should be presented according to Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition, 2009) (APA; www.apastyle.org). All the resources cited in the main text should be listed in the references. For double-checking of the refereed resources, Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) information on each reference should be also described. The references should be written in Times New Roman, 11 pt. Do NOT use any reference formatting software (e.g., End Notes).

Appendices. All the appendices should be presented after the references. Please use an identifying capital letter for each Appendix (Appendix A, Appendix B). Please refer to each Appendix in the manuscript.

Submission Preparation Checklist. As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

1. Author guidelines has been used for preparation of the manuscripts.
2. The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
3. The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, RTF, or WordPerfect document file format.
4. Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
5. Tables and figures are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.

6. The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines
   

7. Authors’ names and affiliations do not appear anywhere on the manuscript for ensure scientific integrity
8. A Cover Letter has been provided with the manuscript (Please see Author Guidelines for preparation of cover letter)
9. A valid ORCID ID number must be provided for all authors.

ORCID ID

All authors must provide a valid ORCID number during application process. If author(s) have a valid ORCID number, they are required to enter into "Edit Profile, ORCID ID section". ORCID iDs can only be assigned by the ORCID Registry. You must conform to their standards for expressing ORCID iDs, and include the full URI.

TYPES OF SUBMISSIONS 

Original Research/ Empirical Research

Case Study (including Assessment Study and Usability/Feasibility Study)

Systematic/Integrative Review Paper (including Meta-Analysis)

Method Paper (including Developmental Research)

Discussion Paper

Perspectives. They are brief, accessible pieces covering a wide variety of timely topics of relevance to technology-mediated learning and teaching. It includes proposals. Perspective articles are limited to 1000 to 1200 words and usually include one figure or table. There is a maximum of 5 references.

Letters to the Editor, up to 300 words and 3 references. JOLTIDA welcomes letters to the editor on items published in JOLTIDA in the preceding six months. Letters may address statistics, facts, research, or theories of the previously published articles in JOLTIDA; however, it should not include critiques of original research or personal attacks on an author rather than constructive criticism of the author’s ideas/study findings. Authors of the original article may be invited to provide thoughtful responses to one or more letters by Editor-in-Chief of JOLTIDA, Dr. Mehmet Akif Ocak.

Other Types of Submissions. JOLTIDA also welcomes submissions of narratives, reflections, viewpoints, commentaries, photo/graphic essays, and other forms of writing. Contact Editor-in-Chief of JOLTIDA, Dr. Mehmet Akif Ocak, at joltida.info@gmail.com  to discuss formats not discussed in these guidelines.

There are no publication fees for the Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age

COPE Code of Conduct(2020). Adapted from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

1. General duties and responsibilities of editors
1.1. Editors should be accountable for everything published in their journals
This means the editors should
1.2. strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
1.3. strive to constantly improve their journal;
1.4. have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
1.5. champion freedom of expression;
1.6. maintain the integrity of the academic record;
1.7. preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
1.8. always be willing to publish corrections, clarifcations, retractions and apologies when needed.

2. Relations with readers
2.1. Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.

3. Relations with authors
3.1. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
3.2. Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identifed with the submission.
3.3. New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identifed.
3.4. A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
3.5. Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
3.6. Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
3.7. Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant feld.

4. Relations with editors
4.1. Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confdence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
4.2. Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
4.3. Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

5. Relations with editorial board members
5.1. Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

6. Relations with journal owners and publishers
6.1. The relationship of editors to publishers and owners is often complex but should be based frmly on the principle of editorial independence.
6.2. Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the journal owner/publisher.om the journal owner/publisher.
6.3. Editors should have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with the journal’s owner and/or publisher.
6.4. The terms of this contract should be in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.

7. Editorial and peer review processes
7.1. Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely.
7.2. Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confdential while under review.

8. Editorial and peer review processes
8.1. Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognising that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.

9. Protecting individual data
9.1. Editors must obey laws on confdentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they should always protect the confdentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions (e.g. between doctors and patients). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognise themselves or be identifed by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.

10. Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)
10.1. Editors should endeavour to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally accepted guidelines (e.g. the Declaration of Helsinki8 for clinical research, the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research9, 10).
10.2. Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognise that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.

11. Dealing with possible misconduct
11.1. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
11.2. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
11.3. Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts13 where applicable.
11.4. Editors should frst seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfed with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
11.5. Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.

12. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record
12.1. Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
12.2. Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions

13. Intellectual property
Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with their publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.

14. Encouraging debate
14.1. Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.
14.2. Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond.
14.3. Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.

15. Complaints
15.1. Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfed complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
15.2. Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints

16. Commercial considerations
16.1. Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments).
16.2. Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
16.3. Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be included in which case it should be clearly identifed.

17. Conflicts of interest
17.1. Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
17.2. Journals should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review.

References/further reading
1. MIAME (Minimum information about a microarray experiment): http://www.mged.org/Workgroups/MIAME/miame.html
2. CONSORT statement (and other reporting guidelines) can be found at: www. equator-network.org
3. BMJ transparency policy: http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/editorial-policies/transparency-policy
4. Marusic A, et al. How the structure of contribution disclosure statements affects validity of authorship: a randomized study in a general medical journal. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:1035-44
5. ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html
6. Responsible research publication: international standards for authors (Position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 2010) In press, 2011)
7. World Association of Medical Editors statement on the relationship between journal editors-in-chief and owners: http://www.wame.org/resources/policies
8. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: http://www.wma.net/e/ethicsunit/helsinki.htm
9. American Educational Research Association ethical standards: http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/Default.aspx?menu_id=90&id=222
10. American Psychological Association ethical principles: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
11. British Educational Research Association ethical guidelines http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/guidelines/
12. Good Clinical Practice: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/013595en.pdf
13. US Department of Health and Human Services Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/labrats/
14. COPE flowcharts: http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts
15. COPE retraction guidelines: http://publicationethics.org/fles/u661/Retractions_COPE_gline_fnal_3_Sept_09__2_.pdf
16. De Angelis C, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 2004;364:911-2
17. PubMed Central: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/

COPE Code of Conduct(2020). Adapted from COPE