Reviewer Guidelines

Trakya Journal of Education is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes scientific articles in different disciplines of teacher education. The aim of the journal is to contribute to the field of teacher training by publishing  scientific, original and ethical academic studies. The reviewer's guide has been prepared as a guideline for the development of academic studies in line with these principles and for the process of qualified reviewer evaluation.

Trakya Journal of Education is an international peer-reviewed journal published three times a year and is prepared by an independent editorial team.

Publishing Principles

Studies are published in accordance with the following principles:

• Studies on the subject of education, using a quantitative, qualitative, single subject or mixed research design.

• Literature reviews, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis studies that provides a comprehensive evaluation of the field.

• Studies that propose models that can be applied practically in education.

Evaluation and dissemination process

Field Editor Evaluation

All studies submitted for evaluation are examined firstly by the chief editors and then by the field editors in terms of purpose, subject, content, presentation style and writing rules. Only those who meet the pre-evaluation criteria are sent to the reviewers. In cases where the chief editor sees it as necessary, the author may obtain expert opinion on the subject of his/her study before it is evaluated. The editor can also make a decision based on expert opinions.

Editorial Preliminary Evaluation Criteria

Editorial pre-evaluation criteria are as follows:

For quantitative studies;

• Studies based on frequency, percentage, difference and relationship statistics, which include a continuous variable or two continuous variables, are evaluated according to the scope of the study.
• Priority is given to the studies prepared using advanced statistics such as single or multiple regression, path analysis, cluster analysis.

For the studies that develop a measurement tool;

• The authenticity of the measurement tool, its scope, the quality of the developed group, the competence of validity and reliability processes, etc. criteria are taken into consideration.

For experimental studies;

• Priority is given to experimental research, which is supported by qualitative data from research data.

For qualitative studies;

• The journal gives importance to the validity and reliability conditions of the research process and the in-depth analysis of the data.

For descriptive / theoretical studies;

• The journal aims to  publish analytical studies that reveal the basic problems of educational sciences and propose solutions to them. On the other hand, these studies are not expected to be in the style of book chapters.

For mixed methods research;

• The publication rate of the studies prepared in the mixed design is higher in our journal However, authors are expected to clearly explain why they used mixed methods. Quantitative and qualitative parts of the research are evaluated separately. Quantitative and qualitative parts are expected to meet the above criteria separately.

Also;

• Studies based on measurement tools that are frequently used in the field and research on highly studied topics are expected to present a new orientation.

• In the studies based on the master's thesis and doctoral dissertations, the authors are expected to present the whole study, to report all the data used in the thesis/dissertation, rather than presenting only some parts of it.

• For all types of research, data are expected to be up-to-date. If the research data are older than than 5 years or more, the journal will not consider it for publication.

Reviewer Evaluation Process

Articles that pass through the pre-evaluation process are directed to two reviewers from the related field for the blind review process. If there is any disagreement between the reviewer evaluations, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. 

Transparency

• All the correspondence between the author and editors are transparent. The exception is the communication and correspondence between the editor, the field editor and the reviewers. In addition, the names of the reviewers are not mentioned in the reports sent to the authors.

• If the reviewer thinks that there are ethical problems, data integrity and academic conflict problems, s/he must report this to the editors. 

• Editor may ask the reviewers to make recommendations to each other's reports in order to make a better contribution to the author in an academic sense. In this case, the names of the reviewers are not shared with each other.

Reviewer Selection

• Multiple factors have a role in the selection of the reviewer. Factors such as experience, research interests, and the previous experience of the editor with the reviewer are the most decisive factors in the selection of the reviewer.

• The author(s) may request the editors not to send  their manuscript to particular reviwers for conflict of interest. See the author's rights section on this topic.

• The reviewer list is periodically evaluated and updated by the editor in each issue.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• The reviewer must first check the file sent to him and make sure that the file can be opened without any problem.

• The reviewer should inform the editor whether s/he can evaluate the study, considering the evaluation period foreseen for the study and the appropriateness of the subject of the study.

• If the reviewer considers that s/he cannot act fairly due to a conflict of interest (author, institution, financier, etc.), s/he should inform the editor that s/he cannot evaluate the study.

• The reviewer should read the editorial letter sent to him by e-mail carefully. The editor may have a special request from the reviewer (such as requesting the evaluation of only some parts of the work).

• If the reviewer receives support from another person during the evaluation process, s/he should inform the editors about the identity of this person.

Report Writing

• Reviewers are expected to focus on the following issues;

·        Does the study provide original contribution to the knowledge in the field?

·        Is the study scientifically out of date?

• The reviewer evaluations are expected to be critical and neutral.

• Reviewers should make a text-centered evlauation and refrain from expressions related to the inadequacies of the author(s).

• Reviewers are not expected to respond to the evaluation criteria in the form of yes or no reponses. They are expected to provide a detailed evaluation, express detail negative/positive opinions and provide reasons.

• The reviewer, in particular, who presents a negative opinion, should provide the author with the weaknesses of his/her study.

• The editor has the right to correct the spelling mistakes in the reviewer reports, and information on errors which contain rude or insulting phrases.

Time

• Reviewers are given a 30-day period for the evaluation of a study.

• If the reviewer cannot evaluate the manuscript within the period in question, s/he may request additional time from the editor or s/he may inform the editor that s/he cannot evaluate the work due to time limitation. Thus, the writer can be prevented from losing time and the editor is provided with sufficient time for the appointment of a new reviewer.

Conflict of Interest

The author may request that certain individuals not be reviewers for conflict of interest.

The Editor does not send manuscripts to the reviewers if:

·        the author/s have colloborated in other studies,

·        the reviewer has taken part in the preliminary reading of the work of the author/s,

·        the reviewer previously had problems with the author/s,

·        the reviewer will financially benefit from the publication of the study,

·   the reviewer and and the author are from the same department of the same university.

The reviewer is expected to inform the editor of any circumstances which would prevent the reviewerfrom making a fair evaluation.

Publication Policy and Ethical Issues

• The editors may not recognize the ethical issues and the violations of the broadcasting policy, no matter how much they try. It is important for the reviewers to warn the editors when they encounter any ethical violations.

Feedback to the Reviewers

• The final status of a study that is decided to be published is sent only to the reviewer who wants to see the study again.

• After a study is published, the reviewer may see that his views are not fully reflected in the study. In these circumstances, it is possible that the other reviewers had different views and the editor has taken these opinions into consideration. In this case, the opinion of the other reviewers may be sent to him/her upon his/her request.

• According to the recommendations of the reviewers, the editor chooses one of the following ways:

-may accept the study for publication, requesting partial or significant changes,

-may ask the author(s) to organize his/her work in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewer and initiate a new evaluation process,

-may reject the publication of the study.

• The editor will make a decision on the opposing views of the reviewers evaluating the study. The editor takes the strength of the arguments of the reviewers into consideration, not the number of reviewer who accept or reject the study. The editor considers reports with strong and justified proposals, rather than reports that provide only yes and no reponses.