Preliminary evaluation
Studies uploaded to the Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences (WAJES) are first subjected to a preliminary evaluation process in which they are examined by the editor. In the preliminary evaluation process, firstly, the scope of the study and its compliance with the subject areas of the journal are checked, and then its compliance with the writing rules and article template. In addition, the plagiarism report showing the similarity rate and the ethics committee approval document are also evaluated. For studies that do not comply with the writing rules or article template, or for which a plagiarism report or ethics committee approval document is missing, the author is contacted again to make arrangements and complete the deficiencies. For similarity rates between 10% and 20%, authors are requested to make corrections. Articles with similarity reports exceeding 20% and not including references may be rejected, assuming that the study's originality and contribution to the field are low.
Evaluation
Candidate articles that pass the preliminary evaluation stage can proceed to the evaluation process. In this process, the candidate article is sent to two referees determined by the editors or field editors for evaluation. The double-blind external/independent peer review process is used in the evaluation process of the articles sent to the WAJES. When determining the referees, the referees who have the necessary expertise in the content of the candidate article are taken into consideration. Referees are selected independently from the authors and not from the same institution as the author. The referees inform the editor whether they can evaluate the article within 7 days at the latest after the article is sent to them. If the referee does not notify within this period, a new referee is appointed. Referees will evaluate the candidate article for 15 days. During this period, the referees make their evaluations using the "Referee Evaluation Form". In addition, if they see it necessary, they can also send their suggestions for editing and correction on the text of the candidate article. If the referees delay their evaluation, they will be given an additional 15 days for evaluation. The first round of referee evaluation processes are expected to take approximately 6-8 weeks; however, if there is a referee who does not accept to evaluate, the period may be extended.
The evaluation process progresses based on the decisions of the referees as follows:
1. SCENARIO: If both referees recommend minor revisions, the author(s) are informed. In this case, the author(s) are expected to make the necessary revisions to their work. Afterward, if any of the referees wish to review the revised version of the manuscript, the candidate manuscript is sent back to the respective referee(s) for reevaluation. The final decision regarding the candidate manuscript is made by the referee(s), and the results are communicated to the author(s).
2. SCENARIO: If one referee recommends minor revisions, and the other recommends major revisions, the author(s) are informed. In this case, the author is expected to make revisions to their work. Afterward, if any of the referees wish to review the revised version of the manuscript, the candidate manuscript is sent back to the respective referee(s) for reevaluation. The final decision regarding the candidate manuscript is made by the referee(s), and the results are communicated to the author(s).
3. SCENARIO: If both referees recommend major revisions, the author(s) are informed. In this case, the author(s) are expected to make the necessary revisions to their work. Afterward, if any of the referees wish to review the revised version of the manuscript, the candidate manuscript is sent back to the respective referee(s) for reevaluation. The final decision regarding the candidate manuscript is made by the referee(s), and the results are communicated to the author(s).
4. SCENARIO: If one referee recommends minor revisions, and the other recommends rejection, an additional referee is appointed for the evaluation process. a. If the decision of the third referee is either minor or major revisions, the author(s) are informed. In this case, the author(s) are expected to make revisions to their work. Afterward, if any of the referees wish to review the revised version of the manuscript, the candidate manuscript is sent back to the respective referee(s) for reevaluation. The final decision regarding the candidate manuscript is made by the referee(s), and the results are communicated to the author(s). b. If the decision of the third referee is rejection, the candidate manuscript is rejected, and the results are communicated to the author(s).
5. SCENARIO: If one referee recommends major revisions, and the other recommends rejection, the candidate manuscript is rejected, and the results are communicated to the author(s).
6. SCENARIO: If both referees recommend rejection, the manuscript is rejected, and the results are communicated to the author(s).
7. SCENARIO: In case of incompatible reports from the referees, the editorial board may make a final decision regarding the manuscript and communicate it to the author(s).
The referee decisions for candidate manuscripts fall into four categories:
* I want to see it again with corrections.
* Accepted with minor revisions.
* Accepted.
* Rejected.
With the renewal of the Dergipark system, referees can also provide four different opinions after making their referee decisions:
* Major revision.
* Minor revision.
* Reject.
* Accept.
In case of inconsistency between the referees' reports, the editorial board may make a final decision regarding the article.
Articles that are given a doi number to be published in future issues may not be listed according to the order of their doi numbers or acceptance dates, depending on the decisions of the editorial board.
