Blind peer review is a method applied for the impartial evaluation of scientific publications. This method forms the basis of the objective evaluation process of scientific studies and is preferred by many scientific journals. Referee opinions are decisive for the publication quality of the SQAE. All manuscripts submitted to the SQAE are blinded according to the following steps:

Type of Blind Refereeing

The SQAE uses the double-blind method in the evaluation of all studies. In the double-blinding method, the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

Initial Evaluation Process

The manuscripts submitted to the SQAE are first evaluated by the editors. At this stage, manuscripts that do not comply with the purpose and scope of the journal, are weak in terms of language, expression and grammatical rules in Turkish and English, contain critical errors in scientific terms, have no original value, and do not meet the publication policies are rejected. Authors of rejected manuscripts will be notified within two months at the latest from the date of submission. Eligible manuscripts are sent to a field editor for preliminary evaluation.

Preliminary Evaluation Process

During the preliminary evaluation process, the field editors examine the introduction, literature, method, findings, conclusion, evaluation, and discussion sections of the manuscripts in detail in terms of originality and the journal's publication policies and scope. Manuscripts that are found to be inappropriate as a result of this review are returned with the field editor's evaluation report within one month at the latest. Manuscripts that are found appropriate are included in the refereeing process.

Refereeing Process

Manuscripts are peer-reviewed according to their content and the expertise of the referees. The field editor reviewing the manuscript recommends at least two referees from the SQAE referee pool according to their field of expertise or may suggest a new referee suitable for the field of study. Referee suggestions from the field editor are evaluated by the editors and the manuscripts are forwarded to the referees. Referees must guarantee that they will not share any process or document about the manuscripts they evaluate.

Referee Reports

Reviewer evaluations are generally based on originality, methodology, compliance with ethical rules, consistent presentation of findings and results, and literature review. This examination is carried out according to the following elements:

1. Introduction and literature: The evaluation report includes the presentation and aims of the problem addressed in the study, the importance of the subject, the scope and timeliness of the relevant literature, and the originality of the study.
2. Method: The evaluation report includes information about the suitability of the method used, the selection and characteristics of the research group, validity and reliability, as well as an opinion on the data collection and analysis process.
3. Findings: The evaluation report includes opinions on the presentation of the findings obtained within the framework of the method, the accuracy of the analytical methods, the consistency of the findings reached with the objectives of the research, the presentation of the tables, figures, and visuals, and the conceptual evaluation of the tests used.
4. Evaluation and discussion: The evaluation report includes a discussion of the topic based on the findings and an opinion on the relevance to the research question(s) and hypothesis(es), generalizability, and feasibility.
5. Conclusion and recommendations: The evaluation report includes an opinion on the contribution to the literature and recommendations for future studies and practices in the field.
6. Style and expression: The evaluation report includes an opinion on whether the title of the study covers the content, the proper use of English or Turkish, and whether the references and citations are given in accordance with the language of the full text in accordance with APA 7 rules.
7. Overall assessment: The evaluation report includes an opinion about the originality of the study as a whole, its contribution to the educational literature, and practices in the field.

During the evaluation process, referees are not expected to make corrections to the typographic features of the manuscript.

Referee Evaluation Process

The time given to the referees for the evaluation process is four weeks. Corrections received from reviewers or editors must be completed by the authors within one month in accordance with the Correction Guidelines (Link). Referees can decide on the appropriateness of a manuscript by reviewing the corrections made, and they can request corrections more than once if necessary.

Evaluation Result

The opinions from the referees are reviewed by the field editor within two weeks. As a result of this review, the field editor submits the final decision on the manuscript to the editors.

Editorial Board Decision

The editors prepare the Editorial Board's opinions on the manuscript based on the opinions of the field editor and referees. The Editorial Board opinions are sent by the editor to the author(s) together with the field editor and referee recommendations within one week. Manuscripts that receive a negative opinion in this process are returned without requesting a plagiarism check. The final decision for the manuscripts for which a positive opinion is given is based on the results of the plagiarism check reports.

How Long Does the Publication Evaluation Process Take?

The publication evaluation process for manuscripts submitted to the SQAE is expected to be completed in approximately six months. However, the period between the date on which the referees or editors request corrections from the author(s) and the date on which the author(s) complete the corrections is not included in these six months.

2.5. Online Study Submission Guide

Author(s) who wish to submit manuscripts for evaluation to the SQAE can do this by becoming a member of the journal management system on the journal website.

The author(s) should follow the instructions on the website to become a member and submit manuscripts.

2.6. Revision Guidelines and Submission Guidelines

Editors, field editors, and/or referees may request one or more revisions and improvements for the manuscripts under review in the SQAE.

The author(s) are obliged to complete the requested revisions and improvements in a complete and timely manner and providing explanations for the changes made. It is expected that they will do this with the awareness that the requested revisions and improvements are objective and aim to increase the originality of the manuscript.

The author(s) should upload the requested revisions and improvements to the system according to the relevant instructions.

2.7. Study/Manuscript Retraction

The SQAE is committed to holistic and complete publishing for researchers and librarians. It is aware that the way to achieve this is to publish credible original research articles. In accordance with the SQAE publication policies, the duties and responsibilities of the author(s) and the Editorial Board during the withdrawal of a study or manuscript are given below.

Authors

The author(s) must cooperate with the journal editor in retraction procedures if they become aware of an inaccuracy or error in their published, early view, or manuscript under review.

Author(s) who wish to retract their manuscript(s) under review are obliged to fill in the Retraction Form (Link) and send the scanned version with the wet signature of each author to the Editorial Board via e-mail at sqae@epdad.org. The Editorial Board reviews the retraction notification and responds within one week. Authors cannot submit their manuscripts to another journal for review unless the Editorial Board approves the retraction request of the manuscripts whose copyrights have been transferred to the SQAE at the submission stage.

Editors 

The SQAE Editorial Board is obligated to initiate an investigation into copyright and plagiarism suspicions regarding a manuscript that has been published, is in early view, or is under review.

As a result of the investigation, if the Editorial Board determines that there is copyright and plagiarism in the manuscript under evaluation, it retracts the manuscript from the evaluation and returns it to the authors by citing the detected situations in detail.

If the Editorial Board determines that copyright infringement or plagiarism has occurred in a manuscript that has been published or is in early view, it will take the following retraction and notification actions within one week.

For a study in which an ethical violation was detected:

1. The phrase "Retracted" is added at the beginning of the title in the electronic display.
2. Instead of the Abstract and Full Text contents in the electronic display, the reasons for the retraction of the manuscript, and detailed evidence sources, if any, are published together with the notifications of the institutions and organizations to which the author(s) are affiliated.
3. A retraction notice is announced on the main page of the journal website.
4. The phrase "Retracted: Study Title" is added to the table of contents of the electronic and printed copy of the first issue to be published from the date of retraction.
5. Starting from the first page, the reasons for the retraction and the original citations referring to it are shared with the public and researchers.
6. The above retraction notices are sent to the organization(s) to which the author(s) are affiliated.
7. The above-mentioned retraction notices are forwarded to the institutions and organizations where the journal is indexed and to the National Library Presidency to be recorded in the indexing systems and catalogs.

In addition, the Editorial Board may inform the publishers or Editorial Boards of previously published studies by the author(s) of the manuscript(s) that an ethical violation has occurred, in order to ensure the validity and reliability of the published studies or so that they can be retracted.

2.8. Appealing the Evaluation Result

The author(s) reserves the right to object to the opinions of the Editorial Board and the Scientific Committee, which are conveyed as a result of the evaluation in the SQAE. The author(s) should send their objections to the opinions and comments made as a result of the evaluation of their manuscript(s) to sqae@epdad.org by email, using scientific language and citing their basis. The objections made are reviewed by the Editorial Board within one month (the field editor and referees of the manuscript may be asked for their opinions on the objections made) and the author(s) are provided with a positive or negative response. If the author(s)' objections to the evaluation result are accepted, the Editorial Board restarts the evaluation process by appointing new referees appropriate to the subject area of the study.