e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research upholds a rigorous and transparent peer-review policy to ensure the highest academic publishing standards. This multi-layered evaluation process includes both an internal editorial assessment and an external peer review, guaranteeing scholarly integrity, adherence to ethical principles, and methodological soundness. The peer-review process follows these stages:

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Editorial Reviews: The preliminary editorial review is conducted to assess whether manuscripts align with the journal's purpose, scope, ethical standards, and formatting guidelines before they proceed to external review. Additionally, submissions are evaluated based on their academic quality, relevance to readers' interests and expectations, and contribution to the relevant theoretical framework. The preliminary editorial review consists of three stages: a technical evaluation of the manuscript, a review by the Editorial Board, and an review of the field editor. These steps ensure that the submission meets the journal’s formal requirements, aligns with its academic focus, and is suitable for further peer review.

• Initial Pre-Editorial Reviewing: As part of the preliminary editorial review, the Editor-in-Chief or an editor from editorial board evaluates whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims and adheres to ethical research and writing standards, as well as formatting guidelines. All submissions undergo a plagiarism check using reliable software such as iThenticate or Turnitin. Manuscripts with a similarity score exceeding 15% may be rejected at this stage.

• Editorial Board Review: In this stage, the Editor-in-Chief, along with two members of the Editorial Board, evaluates the manuscript’s content to ensure its scholarly quality and suitability for the journal. This assessment follows a structured review process, considering key elements such as the manuscript’s research type (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed), overall structure, academic and language quality and coherence. The review also ensures proper organization of titles, subtitles, and sections. At the end of this stage, the editorial team may decide to forward the manuscript to field editor for review, request revisions from the author, or reject it if it does not meet the required standards.

• Field Editor Review: At this stage, the assigned field editor conducts a detailed content evaluation to ensure the manuscript's academic rigor, relevance, and contribution to the field. The review focuses on the clarity of the research problem, the significance of the study, and its alignment with current literature. The field editor also examines the methodology to determine whether the research design, data collection, and analysis methods are appropriate and robust. Additionally, the consistency and coherence of the arguments, the strength of the findings, and the overall contribution of the study to its respective discipline are assessed. The manuscript’s theoretical framework and discussion are evaluated in terms of depth, originality, and connection to existing research. Based on this assessment, the field editor may recommend the manuscript for external peer review, request revisions to strengthen the content, or reject it if it does not meet academic and methodological standards. This stage ensures that only well-structured and academically sound studies proceed to the next phase of the review process.

2. The Double-Blind Peer Review:

Once the field editor approves the manuscript, it is sent to at least two independent reviewers for evaluation. This stage is managed by the field editors, who ensure that the review process maintains academic integrity and fairness. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication history, and institutional diversity to uphold an impartial and well-rounded assessment.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on several key criteria, including:

Originality and significance of the research – The study’s contribution to the existing body of knowledge and its relevance to the field.
Rigor of methodology and data analysis – The appropriateness, reliability, and validity of the research design, data collection methods, and analytical approach.
Clarity of findings and conclusions – The logical coherence of the arguments, interpretation of results, and alignment with research objectives.
Adherence to ethical standards and citation practices – Compliance with ethical guidelines, proper attribution of sources, and adherence to APA 7 citation style.
Coherence and readability – The clarity of writing, logical flow of ideas, and organization of the manuscript.
Relevance to the journal’s scope – The manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s thematic focus and contribution to ongoing academic discussions.
Based on the reviewers' assessments, the field editor makes a final decision regarding the manuscript:

Accept without revisions – The manuscript is deemed suitable for publication in its current form.
Accept with minor revisions – The manuscript requires small corrections that do not significantly alter its content.
Request major revisions – Substantial modifications are necessary before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Reject – The manuscript does not meet the required standards for publication.
If one reviewer provides a positive evaluation while the other gives a negative review, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer for additional assessment. The final decision is made based on the combined evaluations.

In cases where reviewers request to reassess the manuscript after revisions, the revised version is sent back to them for further evaluation, initiating a new review cycle. This ensures that all necessary improvements are made before a final publication decision is reached.