Pseudoscientific Beliefs, Social Influence Sensitivity, and Future Anxiety: A Multi-Group Analysis based on Social Media Status Checking Frequency

Formatting and Content Requirements for Manuscripts

Basic Citation Formats Reference Examples

Sample Article Main Document

It is obligatory for the publication association that the articles (Article Template) to be sent to Research on Education and Psychology (REP) have the following format characteristics.

General Guidelines & Ethics Requirements:

• Mandatory Ethics Committee Approval: Obtaining and uploading an official Ethics Committee Approval Certificate is mandatory for all empirical studies involving human participants, personal data, or sensitive topics. The details of the approval (committee name, date, and decision/document number) must be explicitly stated in the Method section of the manuscript, and the approval document must be uploaded as a supplementary file during initial submission. 

• Publication Frequency Restriction: Authors are limited to publishing one article every two years in REP.

• Submission & Evaluation Notice: While new manuscripts from previously published authors are accepted via DergiPark, the peer-review and evaluation process will only commence 24 months after the publication date of their most recent article.

EDITORIAL POLICIES
The publication process at REP forms the basis for the objective and respectful dissemination of knowledge. Therefore, the procedures within this process directly improve the quality of published studies. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. At this point, it is of utmost importance that all parties involved in the publication process (authors, readers, researchers, the publisher, reviewers, and editors) adhere to strict ethical standards. There is no submission fee for publishing in REP, nor are any Article Processing Charges (APCs) required.

Peer Review Policy
REP operates a double-blind peer-review process in which the reviewer’s identity is withheld from the author, and the author’s identity is withheld from the reviewer. Reviewers may, at their own discretion, choose to reveal their identity to the author in their review; however, our standard policy dictates that both identities remain confidential. Manuscripts deemed suitable for review are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Editorial Procedure
All manuscripts are initially evaluated by the Editor. Subsequently, the statistical and technical quality of the submissions is assessed by field experts. Only manuscripts that meet the journal's standards and fall within its scope will be sent for peer review. Authors can normally expect a decision within three working days regarding whether their manuscript will be sent to reviewers or desk-rejected. In the case of a desk rejection, authors will receive constructive and supportive feedback. REP recognizes that authors seek timely decisions; therefore, reviewers are requested to submit their evaluations within four weeks. Authors then receive one of four standard decisions: 'Accept as is', 'Accept with minor revisions', 'Accept with major revisions', or 'Reject'. Finally, accepted manuscripts undergo language editing.

Authorship
All individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the study should be listed as authors. Principal authorship, author order, and other publication credits should accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. A student is typically listed as the principal author on any multi-authored publication derived substantially from their dissertation or thesis.

Acknowledgements
All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in a dedicated section. Examples include individuals who provided technical assistance or department chairs who provided general support.

Funding
REP requires all authors to explicitly acknowledge their financial support and funding sources under a separate heading.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Editors ensure that the publication process is conducted independently and impartially, free from any potential conflicts of interest among reviewers, editors, or external parties.

Protection of Research Participants
All investigators must ensure that the planning, conduct, and reporting of human research comply with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013 (www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinkiethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-humansubjects/). Authors must obtain ethics approval prior to conducting research from an independent review body (e.g., ethics committee, institutional review board). If any doubt exists regarding compliance with the Helsinki Declaration, authors must justify their approach and demonstrate explicit approval from the responsible ethics board. Approval by a review body does not preclude editors from forming their own judgment regarding the ethical appropriateness of the research. Informed consent must be obtained whenever participant anonymity cannot be fully guaranteed. For example, masking the eye area in photographs is insufficient. If identifying characteristics are altered to preserve anonymity, authors must provide assurance—and editors must verify—that such changes do not distort the scientific meaning.

Plagiarism
REP takes copyright infringement, plagiarism, and publication malpractice very seriously. We protect the rights of our authors and thoroughly investigate all claims of plagiarism or misuse. Equally, we actively protect the journal's academic reputation against malpractice.

PUBLISHING POLICIES
All stakeholders involved in REP's publication process are expected to uphold the ethical responsibilities outlined below. These guidelines have been formulated in accordance with the Open Access standards and policies published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). REP is committed to maintaining the integrity of the academic record and encourages authors to consult COPE's International Standards for Authors.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
* Authors must present their findings honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation.
* Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts are original, non-plagiarized, and not published or under consideration elsewhere.
* Authors should describe their methodology clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be replicated.
* Authors share collective responsibility for the submitted and published work.
* Authorship credit must accurately reflect each individual's contribution to the research and reporting.
* Authors are obligated to inform the editor immediately if they identify a significant error in their submitted, early-access, or published work, and to cooperate fully in revising or retracting the manuscript.
* Authors must be prepared to provide raw research data to the editorial board upon request during the review process.
* Authorship details (e.g., adding/removing authors or reordering names) cannot be altered once the evaluation process has commenced.
* All financial sources and relevant conflicts of interest must be fully disclosed.
* Authors must obtain ethics committee approval prior to conducting any research involving human participants, personal data, or sensitive topics. The details of the approval (committee name, date, and decision/document number) must be clearly stated in the manuscript and submitted alongside the initial submission.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
* Reviewers must remain objective and maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
* Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts purely on their scientific content, without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious beliefs, or political philosophy.
* Reviewers should only accept manuscripts that fall within their specific domain of expertise.
* Reviewers must securely handle or destroy reviewed manuscripts following the evaluation, adhering to confidentiality principles. Reviewed content may only be referenced after official publication.
* Reviews should be constructive, professional, and courteous, avoiding any offensive language.
* Reviewers must complete their evaluations within the designated timeframe and in adherence to ethical principles.
* In the event of a conflict of interest, reviewers must decline the review and notify the Editor-in-Chief immediately.
* Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts anonymously. If a reviewer discovers the identity of an author, they must notify the editor immediately.
* No information regarding rejected manuscripts may be shared, disclosed, or used by reviewers.

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
* Editors guarantee editorial independence. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on scientific merit, without bias toward race, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious beliefs, political philosophy, or institutional affiliations.
* Editors must ensure a fair double-blind peer-review process and maintain absolute confidentiality regarding all submitted manuscripts prior to publication.
* Editors are responsible for the overall quality and content of the journal, issuing corrections, errata, or retractions when necessary.
* Editors must manage evaluation workflows efficiently within the specified timeframes.
* Editors must ensure all publishing procedures comply with established ethical principles.

Unethical Behaviour
If you encounter any unethical conduct or content in REP, please report it immediately to the editorial board at editor.journalrep@gmail.com.

ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL
Obtaining and uploading an Ethics Committee Approval Document is mandatory for all empirical research studies submitted to Research on Education and Psychology (REP) involving human participants, personal data, or sensitive topics.

* Mandatory Document Upload: The ethics committee approval certificate (including the name of the ethics committee, approval date, and issue/decision number) must be uploaded to the system as a supplementary file during initial manuscript submission.
* Exemption Requirement: For theoretical studies, literature reviews, or research utilizing publicly available data that do not require ethics committee approval, authors must explicitly state this exemption during submission.

Authors are required to include the official ethics approval details in the main text (under the Method section and before the References) using the following template:

Ethics Committee Approval: This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Ethics committee approval was granted by [Name of the University/Institution] Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee (Date: DD/MM/YYYY, Decision No: XXX-XXX). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The authors declare no conflict of interest and received no financial support for the authorship, research, and/or publication of this article.

Plagiarism Policy
In accordance with its publication policies, REP requires all manuscripts undergoing peer review to be screened for plagiarism to protect scientific integrity.
Plagiarism detection is conducted using iThenticate software. The acceptable similarity threshold (excluding references) is a maximum of 10%. Manuscripts exceeding this limit will be rejected by the editorial board.

Copyright Policy
Manuscripts submitted to REP must be original works that have not been published previously nor submitted elsewhere for publication.
Authors submitting their work to REP acknowledge that they transfer the copyright of their manuscript to the journal. The Editorial Board is fully authorized to publish the work.
Authors must complete, sign (wet signature required), scan, and upload the official "Copyright Agreement Form" via the submission system.