Peer Review Process

Edutech Research applies a rigorous, multi-stage, and transparent peer review process to ensure the highest standards of publication ethics and scientific quality. The journal operates under a double-blind peer review model, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the entire evaluation process.

Peer Review Model

All manuscripts submitted to Edutech Research are subject to double-blind peer review. Under this model, neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities at any point during the review process. All editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of academic merit, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal's scope, in accordance with the principles of impartiality and transparency.

Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated with respect to:

• Compliance with the journal's aims, scope, and publication policy
• Adherence to formatting and submission requirements, including APA 7th edition referencing style
• Academic language quality and clarity
• Originality screening via plagiarism detection software
• Compliance with research and publication ethics, including ethics committee approval where required

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are returned to the authors without being sent to peer review. Authors are notified of the outcome of the initial screening within 10 working days of submission.

Stage 2: Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic qualifications and the absence of any conflict of interest with the authors or the submitted work.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript with respect to the following criteria:

• Scientific validity and methodological rigor
• Originality and contribution to the field
• Clarity and coherence of presentation
• Accuracy and appropriateness of references
• Compliance with ethical standards

Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within 4 weeks of accepting the review invitation. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe, the editorial office reserves the right to assign an alternative reviewer. Reviewer identities remain confidential and are not disclosed to authors at any stage.

Stage 3: Editorial Decision

Upon receipt of the reviewers' reports, the Editorial Board evaluates the manuscript and issues one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without any modifications.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor corrections. Authors are expected to submit a revised version within 2 weeks.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions. Authors are expected to submit a revised version within 6 weeks. The revised manuscript may be sent to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards and is not suitable for publication. Rejected manuscripts will not be reconsidered unless a major resubmission is explicitly invited by the editors.

All editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope, in accordance with the principles of impartiality and transparency.

Stage 4: Revision Process

Authors who receive a revision request are required to submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response letter detailing how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. Revisions that do not adequately respond to the reviewers' comments may be returned to the authors or rejected.

Stage 5: Final Check and Production

The accepted manuscript undergoes a final editorial review to ensure compliance with the journal's formatting and ethical standards. Upon successful completion of this stage, the manuscript is prepared for publication and assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) via Crossref. The article is then published online on the journal's open-access platform free of charge.

Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may do so by submitting a written explanation to the editorial office at edutechresearch@erbakan.edu.tr. Appeals will be considered only if the author provides a detailed, point-by-point justification demonstrating that the editorial decision was based on a misunderstanding or factual error. The final decision on appeals rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Estimated Timeline