A Guide For Reviewers

The evaluation period assigned to referees for articles submitted to Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Special Education Journal is 15 days. Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within this period and to fill in the relevant evaluation form on the DergiPark system and send it to the Editor. In this process, our Reviewers are expected to consider the followings: 

*Reviewers are in the position of giving advice on the articles during the evaluation process, and the editorial and editorial team are the decision makers.
*Reviewers are expected to give constructive suggestions, and to make suggestions to the authors to improve their articles in a scientific language. In this regard, it is important to avoid ambiguous, subjective suggestions.
*In cases where the referees do not complete the evaluation by keeping the article assigned to them longer than the specified period, our editorship can make a change of Reviewers provided that the relevant Reviewer is informed.
*Since it is not an ethical behavior for the referee to request citing their own publications, we kindly ask our referees to take this into consideration in the articles they suggest to be cited.
*When making evaluations, Reviewers are expected to take the journal writing rules and evaluation forms as a guide. 
*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 editor, the data set can be requested from the authors and relevant investigations can be carried out by our editorial office. Necessary controls will be carried out by our editorial team.
*Reviewers should carefully review scientific responses, human and animal rights violations, unnecessary use of funds and resources, and violations of publication ethics in the articles they review.
*Reviewers should see the consent forms of the volunteers participating in the study and the consent of the participants. If there is a deficiency in this subject in their evaluation, they must inform our editorship and authors.
*Reviewers are expected to provide opinions on all parts of the article, including summary, introduction, method, findings and discussion. In particular, our referees who reject the article are required to submit their opinions on all parts of the articles, otherwise they may be asked to send a detailed justification to our editorial office. The sections where the Reviewers are expected  to give an opinion are as follows: 
*The reviewers should pay attention to the following in the general headings of the research:

Abstract: The background, purpose, method and findings of the research should be explanatory.
Introduction: An adequate conceptual-theoretical framework should be created, the problem should be clearly stated, and the objectives should be presented based on them.
Method: The method of the research, measurement tools, data collection process and analysis should be explained in connection with the introduction.
Results: Analyses should be explained clearly.
Conclusion and Discussion: Answers to research questions should be presented, internal and external suggestions should be presented, results should be handled together with external data.

The Decision of "Rejection"

Our reviewers, who decide to reject the article they have evaluated, are expected to provide opinions on all parts of the article, including summary, introduction, method, findings and discussion. It is important that our reviewers pay attention to the following points while submitting their opinions:

* Please make sure that your contact information as the reviewer is not included in the file you uploaded to the system.
* Using a constructive language in your justification and making suggestions to improve the article will make it easier for the authors to submit their articles to another journal. Please make sure you use professional language in your comments and suggestions.
* Please make sure that your justifications and suggestions are concrete, instead of open-ended statements such as "add more resources", specify the sources you ask them to add.