EVALUATION PROCESS

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.

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 5 days for evaluation.

According to the decisions of the referees, the evaluation process proceeds as follows:
• Both of the referees made a minor revision decision: The author makes the corrections in line with the minor revision suggestions from the referees. If one or both of the referees want to see the candidate article again, a second check is carried out by the said referee/s. As a result of the necessary arrangements in line with the aforementioned recommendations, the candidate article is accepted for publication in the WAJES.

• One of the referees made a minor and the other major revision decision: The author makes the corrections in line with the suggestions of the referees. If one or both of the referees want to see the candidate article again, a second check is carried out by the said referee/s. In this case, two situations arise in line with the new opinion of the referee who gave the major revision in the first stage:
o If the referee who gave major revision in the first stage accepts the corrections made by the author, the candidate article is accepted to be published in the WAJES.
o If the referee who gave major revision in the first stage rejects the corrections made by the author, the candidate article is directed to a third referee with 1 minor revision and 1 rejection decision. If the decision of the third referee is accepted with or without revision, the candidate article is accepted for publication in the WAJES.

• Both of the referees made a major revision decision: The author makes corrections in line with the recommendations of the referees and the candidate article is directed to the referees for re-checking. After that, if both referees accept the candidate article, the candidate article is accepted to be published in the WAJES. If one of the referees refuses and the other makes an acceptance decision, or both of them make a rejection decision, the candidate article is rejected.

• Both of the referees have decided to refuse: Suggestions from the referees are forwarded to the author and the candidate article is rejected.

The referee decision for candidate articles is as follows:
o I would like to see again with corrections
o Accepted with few corrections
o Accepted
o Rejected

With the renewal of the Dergipark system, the referees submit four different opinions after the referee decision as follows:
o Major revision
o Minor revision
o Reject
o Accept