Peer Review Policy – Eurasian Journal of Educational Research

EJER Peer Review Policy	Scientific results of a research can have comprehensive implications for invidividuals and community. Therefore, any manuscripts submited to Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER) undergo a process of “Peer Review” before they are acccepted and published. Our referees who are experts in the field of education and educational sciences play a vital role in maintaining the high standards for EJER and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
*Initial Manuscript Evaluation*	When a manuscript is submitted to EJER, it first undergoes a preliminary check known as a desk review. The Administrative Editor first evaluates all manuscripts submitted to journal. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript or an invited paper to be accepted at this stage by Editor-in Chief. Manuscript that do not follow the format specified by the journal will be rejected at this stage are; • Inappropriate to EJER Guidelines (i.e. Manuscript format is not appropriate), • Lack of originality, novelty, or significance (i.e. Results that are not generalizable, • Mismatch with the aims and scope of the journal (i.e. Topics that are not of interest to the journal’s readership) • Have poor grammar or English language • Flaws in study design (i.e. Choice of a weak or unreliable method) • Poor Writing and Organization (i.e. insufficient explanation of the rationale for the study, inadequate description of methods)
Field / Section Editor	Field/Section Editor initially assigned to a submission by an Editor. Filed/Section Editors manage the Review Process of submissions of those that are accepted. Editors send requests to Field/Section Editors to see a submission through the editorial process. Submissions to the EJER that are assigned to the Section Editor by the Editor appear in that Section Editor’s Submissions In Review queue. Section Editors have access to only those submissions to which they have been assigned. Section Editors can reject or assign reviewers to manuscript submitted to EJER.
*Type of Peer Review*	EJER employs double-blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the review process. Therefore, it is very important, all the manuscript files (including any supplemental Files for Review) has to be anonymized to allow for blinded review? Author/s should remove personal information especially names from the main documents.
*How the referee is selected*	Referees are chosen by the editors or by field/ section editors or members of the editorial board to whom the task has been delegated. Field/Section editors are responsible for assigning manuscripts to reviewers. Reviewers are matched to the manuscripts according to their expertise. EJER journal management system allows field editors to choose from our database or add new referees.
*Referee reports*	Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript meets the criteria under the following dimension: 1. Presentation 1.1. General Readability. 1.2. Organization and Efficiency, 1.3. Focus/Clarity of Expression, 1.4. Grammar, Spelling, and Punctuation, 1.5. APA 6 Format (citation in text, references, tables and APA Statistical Abbreviations. 2. Introduction to manuscript • Appropriateness of Title, • Structured Abstract, • Rationale for Study and Design, • Research Question Identified, • Pertinent Literature Reviewed, • Recent Literature Reviewed Organized and Focused, • Recent Research Reviewed and Critiqued in Article. 3. Methodology 3.1. Appropriateness of Research Design • Description of the quantitative- qualitative or mixed method research approach selected, • Rationale for the quantitative- qualitative or mixed method research approach selected, 3.2. Research Sample/Study Group (described in detail, size justified) • Qualitative research participants & setting (described in detail: who, where, and why). 3.3. Research Instruments (valid and reliable) • Qualitative data collection procedures (described in detail: role of the researcher, relationship witparticipants, researcher’s interest in research topic). 3.4. Procedures 3.5. Data Analysis (Discussion of Statistical analysis) • Qualitative Data Analysis (thoroughness and depth trustworthiness) 4. Results • Using text and visual aids properly, • Interpreting results, • Using headings and sub-headings, • Using language of reporting appropriately, • Referring to tables and figures correctly. 5. Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendation • Results Compared with relevant Literature, • Conclusion Drawn Logically, • Implications for Practice, • Directions for Research, • Identification Themes/Patterns (if a qualitative approach used) • Evidence of Depth and Detail in Narrative of the findings (if a qualitative approach used). 6. Relevance & Significance • Significant Results or Conclusion, • Relevant and Useful Recommendations, • Timely of Interest to the Audience of this Journal, • Value for an International Readership, • Contribution to the Field,
*How long does the review process take?*	The time required for the review process is mainly dependent on the response of the referees. *The Review process normally takes 3 to 8 months to complete depending on the number of rounds the reviews need to take place*. Please do expect slight delay if the review period overlaps with a long holiday or Summer/Winter break. All manuscripts submitted for publication in EJER will undergo rigorous peer review, based on an initial editor screening and then a blind review process by at least two anonymous referees. The section editors usually choose the reviewers from the journal reviewer pool. Normally, the editor will seek reviewer’s feedback before considering the authors’ submission for publication. In that case, the Editor will wait until he/she receives all reviewer comments on submission. If the reviewer’s reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought? In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, or when the one referee’s report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one referee’s report.
*Final report*	The Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Recommended actions: ? Accept: no revision needed, ? Accept:minor revision needed, ? Major revision needed:Suggest revision and resubmission ? Reject: (Provide reasons in the comments to the editors and authors)
Editor’s Decision is final	Based on the Reviewers report Section Editors advise the Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
*Becoming a referee for EJER*	If you are not currently a referee for EJER but would like to be considered as a referee, please contact the Editor. The benefits of refereeing for EJER include the opportunity to read see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of scientific research and its published documentation. Contact: ejer.editor@gmail.com