1. Submission and Preliminary Review
When submitting an article, authors are expected to upload the following documents to the journal's submission system:
• Manuscript file (be prepared according to the journal template)
• Copyright Agreement Form
• Ethics Committee Approval Document (if required)
• Similarity Report
The journal secretary initially checks these documents. Submissions missing any required documents will be returned to the author(s) without further evaluation.

2. Preliminary Review
Submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary review consisting of three stages:
a) Similarity and Originality Check:
The manuscript is evaluated for similarity and originality by the editor-in-chief using the iThenticate, Turnitin, or intihal.net program. A similarity index of up to 10% is acceptable, provided it is not predominantly derived from one or two sources. Authors are asked to revise manuscripts showing similarity rates between 10% and 15%. Manuscripts with a similarity rate exceeding 15% are rejected. For manuscripts derived from master's or doctoral theses, the similarity rate is assessed according to the journal's general publication policies. Under these conditions—and excluding bibliography, methods, and findings—the similarity must not exceed 20%. For detailed guidelines regarding thesis-derived manuscripts, please see Ethical Principles and Publication Policy.
b) Suitability for Journal’s Scope and Focus:
The editor-in-chief and assistant editors evaluate the manuscript’s compatibility with the journal's stated scope and focus. Manuscripts deemed inappropriate for the journal’s thematic coverage are rejected, accompanied by feedback to authors.
c) Methodological and Statistical Appropriateness:
Assistant editors and the statistical editor review manuscripts for methodological rigor and statistical accuracy. Authors may be requested to revise their manuscript if minor corrections are required. Manuscripts containing irreparable methodological errors are rejected.

3. Anonymization Process
Manuscripts that successfully complete preliminary and editorial reviews and have the complete documentation are anonymized by the journal secretary to comply with the double-blind peer review policy. Author names, institutional affiliations, biographical notes, institutional information from ethics committee documents, and acknowledgments are removed from the manuscript text and document properties. The anonymized manuscript is then uploaded to the journal's system and forwarded to the assigned field editor.

4. Field Editor Review
For manuscripts that pass preliminary review, a field editor is assigned based on subject matter expertise. The field editor assesses the manuscript for originality, timeliness, and scholarly contribution to the discipline. If deemed necessary, the field editor requests revisions from authors. The field editor submits a recommendation report to the editor-in-chief. Manuscripts that do not meet field-specific criteria are rejected by the editor-in-chief, and the reason for rejection is communicated to authors.

5. Peer Review Process
Following the recommendation of the field editor and the approval of the editor-in-chief, manuscripts are sent to at least two referees for double-blind peer review. Depending on the manuscript’s subject, methodology, or reviewer disagreement (e.g., one acceptance and one rejection), the number of referees may be increased to three. Referees are expected to complete their evaluations within one month.
Referees who have conflicts of interest, are employed by the same institution as the author(s), or were involved in the author's thesis supervision process are excluded from the review process. No referee reviews more than one manuscript for a single journal issue.
In response to referee recommendations, authors submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed revision report (link to correction form) indicating changes made or not made, along with justifications. If referees request re-evaluation, the revised manuscript is returned to them. Multiple revisions may be requested. Revisions are supervised by the field editor, and additional review rounds may occur as necessary.

6. Editorial Decision Process
The editor-in-chief initiates the final editorial decision-making process based on referee reports and the field editor’s recommendation. Final decisions regarding articles are made by the Editorial Board.
The final decision regarding acceptance, rejection, or revision is recorded in the journal's online system and communicated to the author(s) via email. Further linguistic or technical improvements may be requested after acceptance. Such requests form part of the journal's standard editorial procedures.
The editor-in-chief informs the Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Management Board in writing about accepted manuscripts to be published.

7. Pre-publication Preparation
Accepted manuscripts undergo the following pre-publication steps:
• Language editing (Turkish and English)
• Final editorial proofreading
• Typesetting and page layout
• DOI assignment
• Final similarity check
• Author approval of the final “print-ready” version

8. Publication and Online First
Following final checks, accepted manuscripts are published online as "Online First" manuscripts on the journal’s website.

9. Appeal Process
Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions with justification. Appeals must be submitted with supporting evidence via email to ebfd@ankara.edu.tr. (For detailed information on this subject, see: Ethical Principles and Publication Policy) The author(s)' appeal will be reviewed by the Editorial Board and a response will be provided to the author(s). If the appeal is deemed valid, the Editorial Board will restart the review process with new reviewers.

NOTE: Click here to access statistical data on our journal's article review processes (acceptance/rejection rates, etc.).