Review Policy and Reviewers

The Peer Review Process

Initial acceptance and peer review process details:

The manuscripts received are reviewed by the Editors-In-Chief and the Editors, which prepare the corresponding reports for the acceptance or rejection of the article, based on the quality, scope, scientific validity, importance and authenticity of the subject, relation to previous studies, the suitability of the use of references, citations and the suitability of the journal's submission rules.

The manuscript is checked both if the article meets the formal criteria as was stated above, respecting the writing rules and being formatted according to APA7 Style, by technical editors. All submitted articles are subjected to a smilarity (plagiarism) check. Authors are required to submit a similarity file. Then the technical editor submits a report to the editor-in-chief regarding the article that is checked.

Editor in Chief makes a preliminary decision as to whether to refer to the editors or not. The Editor in Chief can get help from the experts in the Editorial Board while taking this decision. It takes around 2-4 weeks mostly for an initial decision of the Editorial Team. 

 The review process:

  • In the evaluation process of the articles submitted to the PERR, both the authors and the referees' identities are reserved (double-blind peer-review process). Upon approval from the Editor-in-Chief, Editors direct the manuscript to a field editor at first. Then, field editor sends the blind review version of the manuscript to at least two reviewers within the related field.
  • Reviewers are selected with the assurance of quality. They are not affiliated with the same university/research institution as the author of the article. Attention is paid to the fact that each of the reviewers is from different institutions and has at least a doctoral degree (i.e. PhD). Field Editors have the responsibility of sending manuscripts to the Reviewers working within the related fields. Each reviewer is asked to evaluate the scientific&academic validity and authenticity of the article and to emphasize its strengths or weaknesses.
  • Reviewers receive and submit a review report form by filling it on the website, through a recommendation of accepting the article, requiring revision or declining the manuscript. This process takes about 4-6 weeks.
  • Reviewers’ reports play a decisive role in the rejection or acceptance of articles, but the final decision on the publication of an article belongs to the Editorial Team. However, if the reviewer does not send any feedback in a month, a reminder is sent and an additional 2 weeks period is given. When this period is exceeded again and no response is received, a final reminder is made and a 1 last additional week is given. If no feedback or response is received, a new reviewer is appointed and the same process is run.
  • Field Editors are responsible for following this process closely. In case of discrepancy, the Field Editors will ask for a review of the third Reviewer. This process takes another 4 weeks mostly.  
  • The evaluation process takes an average of 12 weeks. In some cases, journal Editorial Team require Editorial Board members to see the articles and evaluate based on its’ quality to be published, according to their fields of expertise. The Author(s), who is/are required to make corrections for the article, must complete these revisions within the requested time period. Then, the decision is sent to the Author/s. If Reviewers have asked the author/s to make revisions, the authors are expected to make necessary changes in 4 weeks mostly. Authors should follow these recommendations of the reviewers generally. However, if they have objections in various cases, they must forward them in writing to the editor. The authors are required to submit a ‘Response to Reviewers Form’. The author states on this form which suggestions of the reviewers, where and how they responded, which ones they fulfilled and which ones they did not fulfill. This form is important for the reviewers to conclude the process quickly.
  • The Author must submit a revised version of the article with all necessary changes (marked in a different color; or via track in changes) and a ‘Response to Reviewers Form’ included on the PERR website. If a major revision is given, the revised article is sent to the same Reviewers for the second round. However, if the required revision is not minor, the Editors may check the manuscript (and ‘Response to Reviewers Form’ whether corrections or change requests have been fulfilled or not.
  • Field Editor’s advice is crucial in the acceptance process of the article. When an article is formally accepted by the Editorial Team, the estimated publication date is reported to the author(s) based on the number of articles waiting to be published. Articles are published in order, based on acceptance dates. Accepted articles are sent to the author(s) about two weeks prior to the publishing, for correction and publishing approval. Options mentioned in the review report form as follows: 

Accept submission (It is ready to go to copyediting as is).
Revisions required (It requires minor changes that can be reviewed and accepted by the editors. To be decided after implemented revisions are checked by the Editorial Board).
Resubmit for review (Major revision. it requires major changes and another/second round of peer review).
Resubmit elsewhere (It doesn’t seem like a good fit for the focus and scope of this journal).
Decline Submission (It has too many weakness to ever be accepted).

 Quality assurance: The entire peer-review process depends on the scientific reputation, professionalism and voluntary participation of invited reviewers from social sciences in various cultural backgrounds. 

Proofreading. The authors themselves will ensure proofreading within the period indicated by the Editorial Board. In the case where the author does not respond within a certain period, the Editorial Board will not carry out the revision.

Responsibility: PERR (Psycho-Educational Research Reviews) and Biruni University are not responsible for the ideas and opinions expressed in the published works. The full responsibility is on the author's side. This remark is also mentioned in the Copyright Agreement for Authors section on the website. 

  The reviews are prepared on this Review Form.
https://perrjournal.com/index.php/perrjournal/review_policy_and_reviewers
perrjournal.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-49
53420
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ZWLKGENY455GFFEMGD4YR4VTHGA5CYB3
<urn:uuid:ace48c79-6f7f-437a-8622-0a3e7dc25f47>
2022-12-05T11:58:45Z
217.116.192.54
text/html
sha1:AATEL6SJ7YKMYYOXU6H34RKQLHRL3C2R
<urn:uuid:ea873dd8-9c6b-4284-8ca3-bf467c0661a9>
https://perrjournal.com/index.php/perrjournal/review_policy_and_reviewers
response
<urn:uuid:3ecf54db-8d16-4a4e-ba52-5515f5e2e0e7>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-49
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-125
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/