Peer Review Process
Articles submitted to the journal are sent to referees after passing editorial pre-screening such as adherence to journal writing rules, spelling errors, statistical and linguistic evaluation, plagiarism screening. Articles pass the 'double-blind referee review'. Each article is sent to 2 reviewers, if both reviewers approve, the article is accepted for publication. If both referees disagree, the article is rejected. If one of the referees accepts an objection, the article will be sent to one referee for acceptance or rejection in accordance with their decision. The aim is that all of these processes should not take more than 3 months (and as far as possible should be completed within 1 month). For this reason, it is important that the author in question returns the article as soon as possible after revision.
The information requested in the Article Evaluation Form will be sent to the author according to our double-blind review policy (referee information is not shared with the author, but the referee corresponds to the editor). The document will be converted into an anonymous user by preventing you from appearing as the owner of the document, while you can convey your suggestions / questions using the "Word Description / Add Comments" function in the Word file of the article. In the "Recommendation" section: You are expected to choose one of the options such as Accept, Reject, Major Revision and Minor Revision. After your major or minor revision recommendation, the article will be sent to the author. The author's corrected version will be offered to you for review. The Editor is responsible for the final decision on acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. The Editor's decision is final.
The information requested in the Article Evaluation Form will be sent to the author according to our double-blind review policy (referee information is not shared with the author, but the referee corresponds to the editor). The document will be converted into an anonymous user by preventing you from appearing as the owner of the document, while you can convey your suggestions / questions using the "Word Description / Add Comments" function in the Word file of the article. In the "Recommendation" section: You are expected to choose one of the options such as Accept, Reject, Major Revision and Minor Revision. After your major or minor revision recommendation, the article will be sent to the author. The author's corrected version will be offered to you for review. The Editor is responsible for the final decision on acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. The Editor's decision is final.
Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers
Declaration of conflict of interest: If you become aware of a conflict of interest after the reviewer has started the review process, you should inform the editor immediately so that another reviewer can be appointed to review the article.
Double-blind status: Reviewer ID not shared with author. To help protect your identity, please do not name yourself when reviewing or contacting us. Also, please do not contact the author if you are aware of them. During the review process, authors should also be treated confidentially by the reviewers. If the manuscript that is sent to the referee(s) is not blinded, the referee(s) should inform the editorial office and should not evaluate this manuscript. Upon receipt of such information by the editorial office, an appropriate blind review will be in place and the manuscript will be reassigned to another reviewer.
Privacy policy: The Referee is required to maintain the confidentiality of the existing article and the subject matter. It is not appropriate for the article to be shared with others or for there to be any discussion of its details with others before publication. If a reviewer asks a colleague to assist in reviewing, the person assisting the reviewer should also maintain confidentiality, and the editor should be informed that an additional person was involved in reviewing it.
Attitude of the referee: Referees should not use the information in the study for their own benefit before the article is published, as stated in the Ethical Principles and Publication Policy section of the IJATE website.
Reporting ethical concerns: Reviewers also have a responsibility to report any ethical concerns, including but not limited to ethical concerns about copying, cheating, suspected plagiarism, or misuse/potential harm to humans or animals in research.
Fraud: Fraud can be very difficult to detect, but if you are of the opinion that the results in a manuscript are incorrect, contact the editor.
Writing the review: Dear reviewer, please submit your comments, suggestions and opinions on the article text using track changes in addition to the relevant comment boxes in the online review form.
Attitude of the referee: Referees should not use the information in the study for their own benefit before the article is published, as stated in the Ethical Principles and Publication Policy section of the IJATE website.
Reporting ethical concerns: Reviewers also have a responsibility to report any ethical concerns, including but not limited to ethical concerns about copying, cheating, suspected plagiarism, or misuse/potential harm to humans or animals in research.
Fraud: Fraud can be very difficult to detect, but if you are of the opinion that the results in a manuscript are incorrect, contact the editor.
Writing the review: Dear reviewer, please submit your comments, suggestions and opinions on the article text using track changes in addition to the relevant comment boxes in the online review form.