The Turkish Journal of Special Education Research and Practice (TRSPED) publishes peer-reviewed scholarly articles. All research articles, review articles, and research reports published in the journal undergo a double-blind peer review process. Other types of content (such as editorials, announcements, or editorial notes) may be reviewed internally by the editorial team and will be clearly identified on the journal website as non-peer-reviewed content when applicable.
Peer review is defined as the process of obtaining independent expert evaluation of submitted manuscripts by reviewers who are specialists in the relevant field and who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff. This process helps ensure the quality, integrity, and academic contribution of published research.
TRSPED is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, and fair peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scholarly publication. The peer review process is designed to provide constructive feedback to authors, support academic dialogue, and facilitate the dissemination of high-quality research in the field of special education.
The journal does not guarantee manuscript acceptance, and acceptance decisions are based solely on scholarly merit and the outcome of the peer review process.
Authors will receive an acknowledgment email within two business days of manuscript submission confirming receipt of the manuscript and outlining the next steps in the review process. This initial communication will include details about the review stages, expected timelines, and contact information for editorial inquiries.
Each submitted manuscript is first evaluated by a Co-Editor for an initial screening. This preliminary assessment focuses on:
Manuscripts that do not meet these preliminary criteria may be returned to the authors within approximately one week of submission, accompanied by feedback highlighting areas that require improvement.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to an Associate Editor, who manages the peer review process.
The Associate Editor identifies at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field and who are not members of the journal’s editorial staff.
TRSPED employs a double-blind peer review process, meaning that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process to ensure impartial and unbiased evaluation.
The peer review process is the cornerstone of the journal’s editorial workflow and is designed to ensure the integrity, quality, and credibility of published research.
Although review timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript, the peer review process typically takes approximately 6–8 weeks.
Associate Editors select reviewers based on:
Efforts are made to avoid conflicts of interest and to ensure diversity in reviewer perspectives.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:
Reviewers provide detailed and constructive feedback through a structured evaluation form. This form includes sections addressing:
Reviewers are expected to follow the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This includes maintaining confidentiality, avoiding personal bias, declaring conflicts of interest, and reporting any ethical concerns such as plagiarism or data manipulation.
At the conclusion of the review process, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:
Reviewer recommendations are advisory and the final decision rests with the editorial team.
TRSPED values the time and expertise of reviewers and encourages timely, respectful, and professional evaluations. While the peer review process remains anonymous, the journal recognizes reviewer contributions through certificates of appreciation and reviewer acknowledgments when appropriate.
Once the reviews are received, the Associate Editor evaluates the reviewer feedback and submits a recommendation to the Co-Editors.
The Co-Editors make the final editorial decision based on:
Authors receive a detailed decision letter including reviewer comments.
Possible editorial decisions include:
Acceptance of a manuscript is not guaranteed and depends entirely on the outcome of the peer review and editorial evaluation process.
TRSPED aims to provide authors with a final editorial decision within approximately 12 weeks of manuscript submission. However, review timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.
The journal does not guarantee rapid peer review times, as maintaining a thorough and rigorous review process is essential to ensuring research quality.
Authors will receive instructions regarding the production process, including:
Authors submitting revisions will receive clear instructions and deadlines for resubmission. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional peer review when necessary.
Authors may contact the editorial office for clarification regarding editorial decisions when appropriate.
TRSPED adheres to the ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and maintains strict policies against plagiarism, data falsification, and unethical research practices.
TRSPED values the time and effort invested by authors, reviewers, and editors. Authors may contact the editorial office at any stage of the review process for clarification or updates regarding their submission.
The journal remains committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and constructive peer review process that supports academic excellence and advances research in the field of special education.
TRSPED implements the following policies to ensure impartiality and integrity in the evaluation of manuscripts authored by members of the editorial team:
A transparency statement is published when such articles appear in the journal, for example:
“The peer review process of this article was managed independently by a Co-Editor. The author, who also serves as an editor of the journal, did not participate in any stage of the evaluation process in order to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the peer review process.”