Notes to Editorials
- Articles representing a range of qualitative, quantitative and mixed research methods are invited.
- The journal welcomes papers based on innovative method
- The journal prioritizes studies done using meta-analysis
- The articles need to be not published elsewhere previously. If the article has been presented at any seminar or conference, the name of the conference, the institution where it has been presented and the date of the presentation needs to be mentioned.
- SiLeT gives priority to current studies using advanced research and statistical methods and techniques.
- SiLeT considers original contribution to the field and competency in methodology the main criterion for publication.
- Authors bear responsibility for the content of the published articles.
- Articles may not be quoted without citing SiLeT and the author(s).
- The Journal is written in English. Thus, the articles need to be written in this language.
EVALUATION OF SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT AND PUBLICATION PROCESS
A. Evaluation of Editorial Board
- The manuscripts that have been submitted to SiLeT are first assessed by the editorial board in terms of purpose, topic, content, presentation style and mechanics of writing.
- Papers that meet the pre-assessment criteria are sent to the referees.
- When necessary, Editorial Board can take the opinion of experts (anonymous readers) about a paper before the evaluation of referee. Editorial Board can make a decision on expert opinion.
B. Pre-assessment criteria of Editorial Board
- Quantitative research based on a single variable, or that analyze mainly frequency, percentage, difference and correlational statistics are usually rejected in preliminary assessment.
- For studies reporting the development of a measurement tool, the authenticity, scope, the quality of the group that has been worked on, the efficiency of the reliability and validity studies are taken into consideration to decide whether the measurement tool can be published independently.
- Empirical studies need to be supported, detailed and further elaborated on with qualitative data.
- For qualitative research, the reliability and validity studies and in depth analysis of the data is of utmost importance
- The journal would like to publish analytical studies setting out the key issues related to educational sciences and proposing solutions. However, such studies should not look like a book chapter and not be based on only literature review.
- For mixed studies, it is necessary for the authors to explain why to use this method and its technique.
C. Referee Evaluation Process
- Manuscripts that pass the assessment of the Editorial Board are sent to two specialists in the relevant field (double blind peer review). If the reviewers are of different opinions regarding the quality of your work, the paper will be referred to a third reviewer. If the referee reports are positive, the manuscripts will be designated for publication.
- Referee reports are kept confidential. Authors have to be attentive to the criticisms, suggestions and corrections of the referees and of the Editorial Board.
- Articles are sent to referees with a form suited to research methodology
- Depending on the evaluation reports of the members of the Editorial Advisory Board, articles are published or not.
- In article evaluation form, reviewers are expected to explain their opinions clearly, in detail, and scientific manner about the criteria’s on the form and any other related issue. A referee’s evaluation which lacks of detailed and scientific explanation is not taken into consideration. That is to say that when an evaluation is based on just ticking off the criteria on the form it is not regarded as a valid evaluation.
- All correspondences between the author and editor, evaluation process of studies, Editorial Board and referee evaluation processes are transparent. The communication between the Editorial Board, referees and the author about a study is an exception. Moreover, in reports sent to the authors, the names of the referees is not stated in no circumstances.
- Referee should share his thoughts with the editor if he thinks that there are ethical, data integrity and academic conflict problems in the study.
- Besides a holistic and consistent evaluation process, the editor may want referees to make suggestion on each other’s reports to make a better contribution to the author academically. At this stage, the names of the referees are not reported. Both parts are evaluated with the criteria stated above.
E. Selection of Referees
- Many factors affect the selection of referees. The most determinative factors in selection of referees are experience and relevancy of field of study.
- Authors may want their manuscript not to be sent to some referees owing to conflict of interest. This situation should be stated by authors while sending the manuscript to SiLeT.
- The list of referee is periodically updated based on performance.
F. Referee’s Roles
- Firstly, the referee should control the document sent to him, and be sure that it is open.
- The referee should inform the editor whether he would be able to evaluate the study by taking into consideration the time given and the relevancy of the study’s topic.
- If the referee thinks that he would not be able to behave objectively due to conflict of interest, he should inform the editor that he would not be able to evaluate the study.
- Referee should carefully read the editor’s note sent by e-mail. Because editor may want referee only to evaluate the method section of the study.
- If the referee had another referee to help him, he needs to inform the editor about the name of the other referee.
G. Writing Report
- Referee evaluations are expected to focus on especially these questions;
- Do the research data and findings consistent with the argument?
- Does the research provide original contribution to the field?
- Referee evaluations are expected to be critical and objective.
- Referees are only expected to evaluate the manuscript, not the in competencies of the authors.
- Referees are expected not only to mark the grading on the evaluation form, but also to detail the negative comments and state the reason. Especially referees who express a negative opinion should present to the author the lack of the study and the reasons for rejection
- Editor can interfere in the miswriting in referee reports, unfit declaration of the authors and the mistakes with the information.
- Referees have 15 days to evaluate a study.
- If the referee thinks that he would not evaluate the study at the given time, he may ask for additional time or may inform the editor that he would not evaluate the study owing to the limited time. In this way, it is prevented for the author to lose time and sufficient time is provided for the editor to assign a new referee.
I. Conflict of Interest
- Author may want some individuals not to be referees owing to conflict of interest.
- Editorial Board expects referees to inform the editor about the situations that may prevent fair evaluation.
J. Broadcasting Policy and Ethical Values
- Although Editorial Board and Editor work in depth on a study, it is possible not to be able to recognize some outliers and ethical problems. When the domain expert referees recognize a situation like this, it is quite significant to warn the Editorial Board or the editor.
K. Feedback to Referees
- The final state of study that is decided to be published is only showed to the referee who wants to see the study again. If the referee does not want to see the study again, editor evaluates whether the needs for the changes were met.
- After a study has been published, a referee may recognize that his views have not been exactly reflected on study he/she reviewed. It is possible that the other referees expressed a different opinion and the editor took into account their views. In this situation, the other referees’ views are sent to the referee who made the evaluation if he wishes.
- According to the proposals of the referees, Editorial Board choose one of the ways below;
- The study may be approved for publication with the request for partial or big change.
- A new evaluation process may be initiated by asking the authors to reorganize their study according to the views of referees.
- The study may be rejected.