Pre-Evaluation Process

Editorial Board of Journal of Special Education, pre-review the manuscripts sent for evaluation and during this pre-review process:

Manuscripts which are not prepared in accordance with the publication rules of the journal and with the sample template are not further evaluated and the author(s) are then required to revise and re-arrange their manuscripts due in 30 days. Therefore, in order to prepare the manuscripts in accordance with the journal’s publication rules, the authors should examine these rules and use the sample template file.

Manuscripts which are appropriate in terms of publication rules and format are checked for plagiarism at the next step. Plagiarism detection of Journal of Special Education is conducted by iThenticate package program. In the literature, 10 to 30% of similarity rates are deemed acceptable; however, 30% is regarded as high (Shafer, 2011). The maximum similarity rate for the journal is 10%. In this process, the editorial board thoroughly examines the similarities shown by the software, and the references and citations which are accurate are sorted out. The editorial board examines the similarities left out, and the mistakes are located and reported to the Editorial Board. In the light of the plagiarism detection report, the Editorial Board makes the final decision on the study and shares the report and the decision with the author(s) when necessary. The Editorial Board might require the correction of the mistakes or return the manuscript to the author(s).  

Following the above process, he "spelling ang language editor" and the "statistics editor" perform the preliminary review process for all articles submitted. In this process, the compliance of the articles with the journal writing rules, compliance with the article reporting rules, introduction-method-findings and discussion parts are examined in detail. Statistical editors examine the methods and findings part of the articles, the tools used in the research process (validity and reliability studies) and the reporting of the analysis. The spelling and language editor examines the introduction-method-findings and discussion part of the studies in terms of compliance with the spelling rules and APA 7. When the process is completed, the authors are informed and if they need to make revisions in their articles, they are informed and expected to make corrections within 30 days. During this process, the following decisions can be made: a) suitable for reviewer evaluation, b) must be revised before going to reviewer evaluation, or c) not suitable for further reviewer evaluation and publication in the journal, and should be rescinded to the author.

Review Process

The pre-reviewed manuscripts by the Editorial Board, are forwarded to three domain expert reviewers to be evaluated regarding the content. If reviewers require corrections or rearrangements, the authors must do

*the corrections of minor revisions due in 30 days,

*the corrections of major revisions due in 3 months,

and send their revised manuscripts through the same online system. If necessary, the reviewers, who have required corrections or re-arrangements, re-evaluate the revised manuscripts. The Editorial Board makes the final decision to publish the manuscripts in the direction of reviewer opinions. When there is a conflict between the reviewers, Editorial Board might decide to send the manuscript to one more different reviewer.    

Reviewer Reports

Reviewers evaluate the manuscripts in terms of originality, the method used, literature, appropriateness to ethical rules, and consistent presentation of findings and results. Reviewers fill in the forms of either research, review, and single-subject designs reviewer forms.

Reviewer Evaluation Process

Time course of the reviewer evaluation process is 21 days. The authors must complete the suggestions of the reviewer(s) or of the editors for correction in time allocated to them for revisions. The reviewers might accept the revisions at first, or if necessary they might require revisions several times.   

In cases where the reviewer identifies a problem with the data set, he / she may request the review of the data set by forwarding this situation to our editorial office. In this case, when deemed appropriate by our editorial office, the data set can be requested from the authors and relevant reviews can be carried out by our editorial office. Necessary controls will be carried out by our editorial team. When the data set is requested from the author, it is expected to send the data set to our editor.

Result of the Evaluation

Evaluations of reviewers are examined due in 15 days by the editors. They declare the ultimate decision for the manuscript to the authors. Authors are expected to fill in the "revision form" presented to them and send it to our editorial office with the article file they have reviewed. In the revision form, the authors are expected to provide feedback (changes in the article and those that cannot be made) to each referee's suggestions.

Revision and Notes to the Editor/Reviewers

After the evaluation is completed, articles that require minor or major revisions according to the reviewer decisions are sent to their authors for revision. During the revision process, the authors are expected to review the reviewers’ opinions, suggestions, and questions. In this process, the necessary changes must be made by the authors, taking into account the opinions and suggestions of all reviewers, and the reviewer questions should also be answered. Valid reasons must be provided for those that could not be implemented from the reviewers’ suggestions. For revision, the relevant file (Revision File) of our journal should be downloaded and filled in (https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/journal-file/19870). When the necessary corrections/revisions are not made regarding the reviewer suggestions or if justifications are not presented, the authors may be requested to revise their manuscript again. When necessary, the raw data used in the research can be requested from authors by the editor or the reviewers. The time given to authors for revision in our journal is a maximum of 3 months. For the manuscripts of which authors do not complete the revision of their article within this period may be rescinded to the authors and the decision not to be published in the journal might be taken. If the authors need additional time, they must send their justifications to our editorial office at ozeled@ankara.edu.tr before the deadline. Whether or not to allow additional time extra after 3 months for the revision is decided by our editorial office. It is important for authors to consider the following points when revising their articles:
* Reviewers and editors should be thanked for their time and suggestions.
* All suggestions and opinions of the editor and reviewers should be handled, and necessary explanations should be included.
* The main changes in the article should be listed and the suggestions of each reviewer should be responded individually.
* All suggestions of the reviewers must be made. When this cannot be achieved, it should be explained why each suggestion cannot be made. In case of disagreement with the reviewer, it must be appropriately expressed.
* Language used when referring to reviewer suggestions must be polite and contain scientific and concrete explanations. In cases where the authors do not implement the reviewers’ suggestions or when they need to express their disagreement, they should express this in a credible scientific language.
* Authors can add two files to the system. Changes made in one of them should be indicated in a different color and the other should include the clean article file in which changes are accepted.
* Authors must upload their articles to the system within the assigned time.

Sample author comments:
Reviewer opinion: "Dear authors, I see that you are using the “X method” as an analysis method in your article, but it would be more appropriate to use the “Y method”, this could lead to differences in your findings and you could enrich the discussion."

The situation where the author agrees with the reviewer: “Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable suggestion. We updated the analysis using the “Y method” and, as you have stated, we saw differences in the findings, and updated our discussion accordingly. "

The case where the author does not agree with the reviewer: “Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable suggestion. In the literature, “Author (2010)” and “Author (2015)” stated that the “X method” can be used as much as the “Y method” in such analyses. For this reason, we preferred the “X method” as the analysis method, and we determined that similar results were obtained when we renewed the analysis with the “Y method”, so we would like to state that we did not change our analysis method. "

Note: In both cases, the author is courteous and acknowledges that he respects the reviewer’s opinions. In both, changes made in the article are noted.


Objections to the Evaluation

The right of objection to the results of the evaluation of the author(s) is retained in the Journal of Special Education. The author(s) should e-mail their objections to opinions and comments given for their manuscripts in 15 days after the decision is sent to them at ozeled@ankara.edu.tr and they should upload their objections to DergiPark system as well. The objections are examined due in 1 month by the editorial board. A field expert is assigned for the objections made by the author(s). This expert examines the study and then makes a final evaluation considering the other reviewers’ opinions and the result is declared to the author(s).  

Editorial Post Reading

In the Journal of Special Education, the editorial final /post reading process is carried out by the editorial team for the articles "accepted for publication" as a result of the reviewer evaluation. In this process, the relevant article is examined in a similar way to the pre-review / preliminary evaluation within the framework of journal writing rules and APA 7. Introduction-method-findings and discussion part of the article is read in detail and the article is reviewed in terms of format, references and content. As a result of this process, the following decisions can be taken: a) the article can be directed to the layout / page-setting suitable for publication, b) the article should be revised in terms of form and content, and c) the article is not suitable for publication as it is and should be rescinded to the author(s). At the end of the editorial final /post reading process, the layout /page-setting is made for articles suitable for publication. At the end of the layout /page-setting, the article is published in advanced online publication  by getting the DOIs to the article.

Online First

Articles that are accepted to be published take place under the online first section in the order of acceptance date. During the online first, in terms of journal publication rules and page setting the authors are expected to review their articles and inform the editorial board if they have any suggestions for change. After the publication of the journal, no changes to the articles can be made. 

Volume and Issue Number

Articles in advance online publication are assigned to the next issues, taking into account the order of early publication order.