Turkish Journal of Teacher Education is a peer-reviewed journal indebted to the hundreds of experts who donate their time to appraise articles submitted for publication critically. The primary aims of peer review are two-fold: to decide whether or not an article should be published (based on quality and relevance to the journal), and to improve the article before publication.
All submissions first go through an internal peer review, then an external peer review. Each submission is reviewed by the assigned editor, who decides whether to send the manuscript out for peer review or to reject it without external review. Articles can be rejected at this stage for a variety of reasons, such as similarity to a recently published article, the topic being outside the scope of the Journal, insufficient new information, significant scientific validity flaws, or an unprofessional presentation. If the editor believes the article may be of interest to our readers, it is then sent out for external peer review. Submissions to the journal should be original articles evaluating previous studies in the field and should produce new and worthwhile ideas and perspectives. An article to be published in it should not have been previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere. Papers presented at a conference or symposium may be accepted for publication if this is indicated.
The journal uses double-blind peer review, with at least two reviewers. Referee names are kept strictly confidential. Referee identities may only be disclosed to the journal Editorial Board members, who are also instructed to maintain confidentiality.
Turkish Journal of Teacher Education uses double-blind review, meaning that both the reviewer and the author's identities are hidden from each other throughout the review process. The authors and reviewers are responsible for showing their efforts to conceal their identities from each other. This involves the authors, and reviewers (who upload documents as part of their review) checking to see if the following steps have been taken about the text and the file properties: The authors of the document have deleted their names from the text, with "Author" and year used in the references and footnotes, instead of the authors' name, article title, etc. In Microsoft Office documents, author identification should also be removed from the file's properties.
Upon receiving a new manuscript, the Editorial office conducts initial pre-refereeing checks to ensure the article is legible, complete, correctly formatted, original, within the scope of the journal in question, in the style of a scientific article, and written in clear English. Any article that fails to meet any of the journal criteria may be rejected at this stage.
Submission is typically sent to two reviewers for evaluation. Then, the Section Editor works with these reports and submits a unified report to the author(s). The article must receive a positive review from both referees to be accepted for publication in the journal. When necessary, the third referee or the advisory committee may be asked to contribute to the evaluation process.
!!! Anonymizing your manuscript for double-blind peer review: a checklist
• Do not include author names or affiliations anywhere in the manuscript, or any Supplementary Information files (or in any file names).
• Provide a separate title page giving all the author names and affiliations (when you reach the “File Upload” stage on submission, please choose the file designation “Title Page”).
• Do not include an Acknowledgments section containing author names in the manuscript on submission. The information can be added to the manuscript after the peer-review process is complete.
• Do not include work in the reference list that has not yet been accepted for publication.
• When referring to your work within the paper, avoid using terminology that might reveal your identity (e.g., avoid phrases such as “we have previously shown [reference]”).
• Do not sign rebuttals at the revision stage with author names, nor appeals.
Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias, for example, based on an author's country of origin or previous controversial work.
Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered based on the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.
Reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter, or self-citation.
Length of Review Process: The Review Process is usually completed within 4-12 weeks.
Plagiarism Policy: Plagiarism is presenting all or part of another person's work as one's own. Duplication or self-plagiarism is the reuse of a portion or all of the work in another article without citing the original work. CrossCheck is a multi-publisher initiative to screen published and submitted content for originality. It uses the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts.