1. Initial Evaluation Process

The works sent to TYB AKADEMY are first evaluated by the editor. At this stage, works that do not comply with the purpose and scope of the journal, which are weak in terms of language and expression rules in Turkish, English and other languages, contain scientifically critical errors, have no original value and do not meet publication policies.

The authors of the rejected works are informed within one month at the latest from the date of submission. Preliminary evaluation process is initiated for the studies approved by the Editorial Board.



2. Pre-Evaluation Process

In the pre-evaluation process, the editor examines the sections of the studies, introduction and literature, method, findings, conclusion, evaluation and discussion in detail in terms of journal publication policies and scope and originality. In addition, TYB AKADEMY examines the article in terms of form according to the writer's guide. For those who need correction, they contact the author of the article and ask that they send the requested corrections within 7 days at the latest. Works that are not sent within the given time are deleted from the system. The studies deemed appropriate are included in the process of appointing referees.



3. Referee Appointment Process

Referees are assigned to the works according to their content and the areas of expertise of the referees. The editor and editorial board reviewing the study suggests at least two referees from the Complex of Scientific Committee or Referee Pool, according to their area of expertise or may suggest new referees suitable for the field of study.

Appropriate referee suggestions are evaluated by the editor and then the studies are forwarded to the referees. Referees are obliged to guarantee that they will not share any processes and documents about the work they evaluate.


4. Reviewer Evaluation Process

The time given to the referees for the referee evaluation process is 15 days. This period may be extended for another 15 days due to mandatory reasons. Correction suggestions from referees or editors must be completed by the authors within 7 days according to the "correction instructions". The referees can decide on the suitability of the study by examining the corrections and may request more than one correction if necessary.

● TYB AKADEMY is a peer-reviewed journal indebted to hundreds of experts who take their time to critically evaluate the articles submitted for publication. Peer-reviewed articles are considered to be quite reliable because they are reviewed by experts with special knowledge on the subject. Peer review is crucial to the editorial process because editors don't have the time or expertise to review all aspects of every submission. The main purposes of peer review are 2 parts: deciding whether to publish an article (based on the quality and relevance of the journal) and improving the article before publication.

● All applications first go through an internal pre-assessment process, and most go through an external evaluation process. Each submission is reviewed by the appointed editor, who makes the initial decision to submit the article for review or reject it without external review. Articles may be rejected at this stage for various reasons, such as similarity to a recently published article, out of scope of the journal, lack of new information, significant lack of scientific validity, or an unprofessional presentation. If the editor believes that the article may be of interest to our readers, then it is submitted for external review.

● Studies coming to the TYB AKADEMY should be original articles evaluating previous studies in the field and should generate new and valuable ideas and perspectives.

● This journal uses double-blind review performed by at least two referees. Referee names are kept strictly confidential. The identities of the referees can only be disclosed to the members of the Editorial Board of the journal who are instructed to protect confidentiality.

● Peer-review type: The TYB AKADEMY uses double-blind peer-review, which means that both reviewer and author identities are hidden from each other throughout the review process. Authors and reviewers are obliged to make efforts to hide their identities from being known to each other. This includes authors and reviewers (who uploaded documents as part of their review) to check whether the following steps have been taken regarding their text and file properties: The authors of the document have deleted their names from the text. "Author" in references and footnotes the name of the author etc. In Microsoft Office documents, the author ID must also be removed from the file records.

● Referees play a central role in scientific publishing. External peer review helps validate research, establish a method by which it can be evaluated, and increase networking opportunities in research communities. Despite criticism, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation.

Blind Refereeing and Evaluation Process

Blind referee is a method applied for the publication of scientific publications with the highest quality. This method forms the basis of the objective evaluation process of scientific studies and is preferred by many scientific journals. Referee opinions have a decisive place in the publication quality of TYB AKADEMY. All works sent to the complex are evaluated by double-blind according to the following stages. In the double-blind method, the author and referee identities of the studies are hidden. For this reason, the authors are asked to delete their names when uploading their articles to the system.

Double Blind Review

◦ The names of both referees and authors are kept confidential.

◦ Hakem isimleri kesinlikle gizli tutulur. Hakem kimlikleri sadece gizliliği korumanın talimatı verilen dergi Yayın Kurulu üyelerine açıklanabilir.

Anonymizing your manuscript for double-blind peer review: a checklist

◦ Do not include author names or affiliations anywhere in the manuscript, or in any Supplementary Information files (or in any file names).

◦ Provide a separate title page giving all the author names and affiliations (when you reach the “File Upload” stage on submission, please choose the file designation “Title Page”).

◦ Do not include an Acknowledgments section containing author names in the manuscript on submission. The information can be added to the manuscript after completion of the peer review process.

◦ Do not include work in the reference list that has not yet been accepted for publication.

◦ When referring to your own work within the paper, avoid using terminology that might reveal your identity (e.g. avoid phrases such as “we have previously shown [reference]”).

◦ Do not sign rebuttals at revision stage with author names, nor appeals.

◦ Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias, for example based on an author's country of origin or previous controversial work.

◦ Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.

◦ Reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter or self-citation.

Length of Review Process: The publication process of the accepted work lasts 2-4 months from the date of receipt.

Plagiarism Policy: Plagiarism is defined to present a portion or all the work of others as their own. Duplication or self-plagiarism is the reuse of a portion or all of the work in another article without citing the original work.

Referee Reports

Referee evaluations are generally based on the originality of the studies, the method used, the compliance with the ethical rules, the consistent presentation of the findings and the results, and the review of the literature.

This review is carried out according to the following elements:

1. Introduction and literature: The evaluation report includes an opinion about the presentation and objectives of the problem discussed in the study, the importance of the subject, the scope of the literature on the topic, its timeliness and the originality of the study, the consistency of the title, summary and article content.

2. Method: The evaluation report contains information about the suitability of the method used, the selection and characteristics of the research group, validity and reliability, as well as 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 analysis methods, the consistency of the findings achieved with the research, the presentation of the tables, figures and images required, and the conceptual evaluation of the tests used.

4. Assessment and discussion: The assessment report includes an opinion on the topic based on the findings, compliance with the research question(s) and hypothes(es), generalizability and applicability.

5. Conclusion and suggestions: The evaluation report includes an opinion on the contribution to the literature, suggestions for future studies and applications in the field.

6. Style and expression: The evaluation report also includes opinions on the content of the title of the work, the proper use of Turkish, the submission and the submission of the references in accordance with the APA 7 rules in the language of the full text.

7. General evaluation: The evaluation report contains an opinion about the originality of the study as a whole, the educational literature and its contribution to the applications in the field.

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



Studies submitted to the TYB AKADEMY are subject to evaluation processes according to the following principles:

1) Title-content compatibility and subject integrity

2) Turkish and English abstracts include the purpose, method, application area and result of the study

3) Introduction (defining and revealing the problem, why such a study is necessary, etc.)

4) Definition of scope and conceptual framework

5) Presentation, order and consistency of the information

6) Systematic compatibility with scientific criteria

7) Evaluation for previous studies

8) Language dominance, intelligibility, fluency and academic style

9) Dominate the terminology of the field

10) Critical and comparative perspective

11) Accessing first-hand resources

12) Reaching new scientific studies

13) Originality of the study

14) Contribution to the field (conceptual, methodological, application)

15) Consistency of the implications put forward and rational relationship to the results

16) Evaluation and conclusion