PEER REVIEW POLICY
The OJER operates a double-blind peer reviewing process. The manuscript submitted via Open Journal Systems should not include authors’ names, institutional affiliations, and contact information. Also, authors’ own works need to be blinded in the references (see the APA style). All submitted manuscripts are reviewed by the section editor, and only those meeting the aims and scope of the journal will be sent for outside review. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers.
All manuscripts submitted for publishing in the OJER are expected to be free from language errors and must be written and formatted strictly according to the latest edition of the APA style. Manuscripts that are not entirely written according to APA style and/or do not reflect an expert use of the English language will not be considered for publication and will not be sent to the journal reviewers for evaluation. It is completely the author’s responsibility to comply with the rules. We highly recommend that non-native speakers of English have manuscripts proofread by a copy editor before submission. However, proof of copy editing does not guarantee acceptance of a manuscript for publication in the OJER.
The editors and reviewers are doing their best to reduce the time that elapses between a paper’s submission and publication in a regular issue. It is expected that the review and publication procedures will be completed in about 10-12 weeks after submission, depending on reviewers’ feedback and the editors’ final decision. If revisions are requested some changing and corrections then publication time becomes longer. At the end of the review process, accepted papers will be published on the journal’s website.
One who is chosen to be reviewer for a manuscript should follow general guidelines below. Also, if a reviewer has questions, should feel free to contact the Section Editor (the editor who sent the reviewer a request to review).
(1) Reviewer should try to meet the deadlines given for reviews, because many submissions are from junior faculty whose promotion might depend on the outcome of a review. If reviewer cannot meet the deadline, should let the managing editor know when to expect his/her review.
(2) It is necessary to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Despite the fact that a double-blind review process is enabled, there are situations when scholars recognize others’ work, so if reviewer thinks he/she cannot give an impartial review, of course the reviewer should disqualify him(her)self. If the reviewer thinks that recognizing the author’s work will not prevent him/her from giving an impartial review, the reviewer should notify the editor of the potential appearance of conflict of interest.
(3) It is of crucial importance to recognize breaches of ethics, including suspected plagiarism. If reviewer notices plagiarism or other breaches of ethics during review procedure, should notify the editor.
(4) It is important to disclose limitations. If reviewer is uncertain about some aspects of a manuscript, or thinks certain aspects of a manuscript are outside his/her expertise, should let the editor know. For example, it is in the situation when the particular methodology used in the paper is unfamiliar to his/her.
(5) It is necessary to have confidential considerations of manuscripts. A reviewer under no circumstances may distribute them further, or make any other use of them, without first contacting the editor, who will then discuss the request with the author.
Beytullah Karagöz (PhD)
Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Faculty of Education, Tokat, TURKEY
Yaşar ŞİMŞEK (PhD)
Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Faculty of Education, Tokat, TURKEY
İzzet ŞEREF (PhD)
Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Education, Sivas, TURKEY
Rüçhan UZ (PhD)
Bursa Uludağ University, Faculty of Education, Bursa, TURKEY
Sinan YALÇIN (PhD)
Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Faculty of Education, Erzincan, TURKEY
Müge YURTSEVER KILIÇGÜN (PhD)
Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Faculty of Education, Erzincan, TURKEY
Zeynel Abidin YILMAZ (PhD)
Kilis 7 Aralık University, Faculty of Education, Kilis, TURKEY
Sinan ÇINAR (PhD)
Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Faculty of Education, Rize, TURKEY
Safiye Sunay YILDIRIM DOĞRU (PhD)
Dokuz Eylül University, Buca Faculty of Education, Izmir, TURKEY
Tuğba UYGUN (PhD)
Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Faculty of Education, Alanya, TURKEY
Tamer KUTLUCA (PhD)
Dicle University, Faculty of Education, Diyarbakır, TURKEY
Dimitris Germanos (PhD)
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Faculty of Education, GREECE
Mariana Norel (PhD)
University of Transilvania, Faculty for Psychology and Science of Education, Brasov, ROMANIA
Nevyana Dokova Dokova (PhD)
South-West University ''Neofit Rilski'', Faculty of Pedagogy, Blagoevgrad, BULGARIA
Yuliana Yordanova Kovachka (PhD)
South-West University ''Neofit Rilski'', Faculty of Pedagogy, Blagoevgrad, BULGARIA
Blaga Georgieva Dzhorova (PhD)
South-West University ''Neofit Rilski'', Faculty of Pedagogy, Blagoevgrad, BULGARIA
Gergana Hristova Dyankova (PhD)
South-West University ''Neofit Rilski'', Faculty of Pedagogy, Blagoevgrad, BULGARIA
Arthur J. Granada (PhD)
Wichita State University, College of Applied Studies, UNITED STATES