Policies

The publication policy of Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer) aims to improve and disseminate information objectively and respectfully. Constituting the main content of PedPer, double-blind-reviewed studies support and exemplify the scientific method. It is expected that all parties (editors, reviewers, authors, publishers, and readers) taking part or playing roles in the processes of producing a peer-reviewed product may also contribute to these processes to proceed in the right direction. Aiming to arrive at this end, it is of utmost importance for scientific studies to follow ethical principles, rules, regulations, and considerations. PedPer accepts the following ethical principles based on the guide and policies made by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All stakeholders of PedPer are expected to adopt, embrace, and follow the ethical principles below.

1. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

The author(s) are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the data used in their study by systematically maintaining records of research procedures and processes and by providing the raw data and related information upon request by the editorial or scientific boards. They must confirm that their manuscript has not been previously published or accepted for publication in another peer-reviewed journal. Individuals who have not made an intellectual contribution to the study should not be listed as authors. In studies involving human or animal subjects, authors are required to comply with relevant national and international ethical standards—such as the WMA Helsinki Declaration, the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the World Association of Medical Editors, and the EU Directive on the Use of Animals—and to obtain the necessary permissions while respecting the privacy of participants. Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor and publisher at the time of submission and, if necessary, include a relevant statement, issue a correction, or withdraw the manuscript. Additionally, during the peer review process, authors may be asked to submit the raw data from their research and are therefore expected to retain and protect it for at least five years. If a mistake is identified in a study at any point prior to or during publication, it is the responsibility of the author(s) to notify the editor and collaborate fully in the process of correction or withdrawal.

Ethics Committee Permission and Approval

When conducting research involving humans, authors must explain in their manuscripts how they obtained ethical approval from the relevant committee and how they obtained participant consent.

2. Ethical Duties and Responsibilities of the Editor

The editor and field editors of PedPer are expected to fulfill their ethical responsibilities in accordance with the principles outlined in the "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and the "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors", both of which are published as open-access documents by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These guidelines can be accessed at: COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (2011). Editors must perform their duties in a balanced and objective manner, treating all authors fairly without discrimination based on gender, religious beliefs, political views, ethnicity, or nationality. Manuscripts submitted to PedPer should be evaluated based on the journal’s submission guidelines, their scholarly importance, and originality. In cases of rejection, editors should clearly and fairly explain their reasons. If a manuscript requires extensive revision due to formatting, punctuation, language, or citation issues, the editor should inform the author and allow adequate time for revision. In instances of conflict of interest, appropriate precautions must be taken and both parties' positions fairly evaluated. The editorial team is responsible for assessing submissions solely on their content, without favoritism. All manuscripts are subject to a double-blind peer review process, and this principle applies equally to sponsored or themed submissions. The journal supports authors’ freedom of expression and provides timely updates regarding the status of their submissions without compromising the blind review process. Editors are responsible for regularly updating the manuscript templates and clearly communicating author expectations. All published manuscripts must include submission and acceptance dates. The editorial team continuously strives to enhance the journal’s quality. If any ethical complaint is made, appropriate actions must be taken in line with PedPer’s policies. Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to allegations or defend their work, and sanctions—if necessary—should be applied objectively and fairly. Editors must ensure that reviewers declare no conflicts of interest prior to their evaluation. The reviewer pool should be consistently expanded and refreshed, considering disciplinary expertise, and those who do not provide timely or respectful feedback should be excluded. Manuscripts that do not align with PedPer’s aims and scope must be rejected. Editors are also responsible for identifying and appointing editorial board members who can contribute to the journal’s development. Editors must inform new board members about submission procedures and their responsibilities. Finally, editors should consider and, if appropriate, respond to feedback or criticisms regarding the journal.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of the Reviewers

The use of a double-blind review process at PedPer plays a crucial role in ensuring the quality and integrity of scholarly publication. This approach maintains confidentiality and supports impartial, independent evaluations. In this system, reviewers do not have access to author identities, nor do authors know who reviews their work; all evaluations and comments are transmitted exclusively through the journal’s management system. During this process, the editor assigns the full text and relevant evaluation forms to the reviewers. Reviewers are therefore expected to adhere to a set of ethical responsibilities. They must agree to review only those manuscripts that fall within their field of expertise and commit to evaluating them fairly, objectively, and within the given timeline. The ‘Reviewer Evaluation Form’ must be completed in full, without revealing any information that may disclose the reviewer's identity, while clearly indicating whether the manuscript is suitable for publication and explaining the reasoning behind that judgment. Reviewers are expected to assess the content solely on its academic merit, without allowing factors such as nationality, gender, political or religious beliefs, or economic interests to influence their judgment. Reviews should be conducted rigorously, respectfully, and constructively. Comments must be free from hostility, personal attacks, or unscientific assertions; if such issues arise, reviewers may be asked to revise their feedback. After the evaluation, the manuscript should be deleted, and the author and editorial process must remain confidential. If a reviewer believes that a conflict of interest or another issue could compromise the impartiality of the review, they are obliged to notify the editor and decline the assignment. Manuscripts reviewed may only be used or cited by reviewers after official publication. Reviewers must also disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest—whether financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal—so the editor can take appropriate action, including withdrawing the manuscript from the review process if necessary.

4. Ethical Responsibilities of the Publisher

We expect the publisher of PedPer, like all other stakeholders, to adhere to ethical principles and conduct themselves accordingly. The publisher holds full responsibility for taking precautions against scientific misconduct, including abuse, fraud, and plagiarism. Additionally, the publisher is responsible for protecting the intellectual property rights of all articles published in the journal and for maintaining accurate records of all published works. It is also acknowledged that decisions concerning the reviewing, editorial, and publication processes fall exclusively under the authority of the editor and the editorial board. Furthermore, all stakeholders are encouraged to contact the publisher without hesitation if they encounter or suspect any unethical behavior.

5. Plagiarism Policy

Intentionally or not, plagiarism means breaching research ethics. Publishing a piece of work with similar or the same content as other studies without citing them is ethical misconduct as well as an offense against the law. The editorial board is entitled to act in accordance with COPE’s rules and regulations in case of any claim related to a manuscript having plagiarism, referencing manipulation, and data forgery. The authors are required to send their plagiarism reports to info@pedagogicalperspective.com when they submit their manuscripts to PedPer. Without initiating the peer-review policy, we will return manuscripts that have correspondences with other studies exceeding 20% to their authors. The authors may submit their manuscripts after ensuring that the correspondence report of their respective manuscripts shows less than 20% similarity.

6. Misconduct of Scientific Research and Publication Ethics

Scientific research and publication ethics require strict adherence to principles that safeguard the integrity and reliability of academic work. Violations of these principles include a range of misconduct. Plagiarism involves using another person’s original ideas, methods, data, or outputs without proper citation or presenting them, in whole or in part, as one's own. Forgery refers to the use of fabricated or manipulated data. Distortion entails altering or misrepresenting research records or results, falsely claiming the use of tools or materials, or shaping findings to align with the interests of sponsoring individuals or institutions. Duplication occurs when the same research data is published in multiple outputs, while slicing involves fragmenting research findings into separate publications in a way that compromises the study's integrity. Undeserved authorship includes assigning authorship to individuals who did not contribute meaningfully or omitting those who did, as well as unjustified changes to the order of author names. Further misconduct includes failing to disclose supporting individuals or institutions, citing unpublished or incomplete theses or dissertations, and conducting research on human or animal subjects without securing the necessary ethical approvals—thereby violating human rights, animal welfare, or ecological balance. Additionally, the misuse of allocated research resources and the deliberate dissemination of misleading or deceptive information are also considered serious breaches of ethical standards.

7. Transfer of the Copyrights

Publishers should not publish or send manuscripts for publication elsewhere. Authors must declare that their manuscript has not been published or submitted elsewhere. Otherwise, the authors will be responsible for the consequences. The authors may continue to have the rights to publish the content of the manuscript on their personal websites or in their institutions’ open-access archives; they may produce copies of the manuscript for personal use, and they may use its content in their other works as a whole by citing it appropriately.

8. Conflict of Interests

Conflicts of interest may arise in situations where individuals or groups stand to gain economically or personally, and such conflicts can undermine the integrity of scientific research and its publication. The reliability of scholarly work depends, in part, on how objectively conflicts of interest are identified and managed throughout the processes of study design, execution, authorship, evaluation, revision, and dissemination. Financial relationships, one of the most obvious conflicts, can harm the journal's credibility and the authors' perceived impartiality. These conflicts may also stem from interpersonal ties, academic rivalry, or divergent intellectual perspectives. Authors are encouraged to avoid collaborating with sponsors—whether commercial or non-profit—who may attempt to limit data transparency or exert influence over data interpretation, manuscript drafting, or publication decisions. To maintain ethical review standards, editors are advised to avoid assigning reviewers who may have personal or professional affiliations with the authors of a manuscript. Likewise, editors making final decisions must ensure that they have no personal or financial ties to the work in question. Authors, in turn, are expected to disclose any potential conflicts proactively to the editorial board. PedPer’s editorial team is committed to identifying and mitigating such conflicts to preserve an impartial and ethically sound review process.

9. Open Access Policy

Aiming to support the idea of accessing information through the easiest way, PedPer adopts an open access policy and supports the idea of requiring peer-reviewed journals to become open access, which appeared in Budapest Open Access Initiative signed on September 12, 2012. Thus, the open-access policies adopted by the editorial board of PedPer can be found at: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10-recommendationsBudapest Open Access Initiative defines the concept of “open access” as:

"... free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers apart from those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Copyright should only give authors control over their work's integrity and the right to be acknowledged and cited."

Open-access policies promise enormous potential for researchers and readers in sharing knowledge and information as scientific developments expand. Based on this perspective, PedPer invites its readers to freely access and use its published works by referring to their sources and authors. The readers do not need to obtain permission from the authors or the publisher.

10. Creative Commons & License

A Creative Commons license means that material with copyrights may freely be accessed and used by other parties. If an author wants to share her/his work with others, allowing them to make changes or amendments to its content, she/he uses a CC license. All articles published on PedPer are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (Attribution 4.0 International CC BY). This license entitles all parties to use scientific work for non-profit purposes under the condition of providing references. Open access is an approach that eases interdisciplinary communication and encourages cooperation among different disciplines. Therefore, PedPer contributes to the field of education and teacher training by providing more access to its articles and a more transparent review process. The publication processes of PedPer are executed in accordance with the manuals of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the National Information Standards Organization (NISO), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), and the European Association of Science Editors (EASE).

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if you have made changes. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

Notices:

You don't have to follow the license for public domain material or where your use is allowed by an exception or limitation. The license does not provide any warranties. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.

11. Peer Review Policy

The reviewing process of manuscripts submitted to Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer) follows a structured set of steps. First, the editor conducts a preliminary evaluation to determine whether the manuscript's aim, subject, content, and writing style align with PedPer’s publication policies. This initial assessment is completed within a maximum of 10 days. Manuscripts deemed suitable by the editor are forwarded to the field editor, while those not approved are returned to the authors with suggestions for revision and resubmission.

After reviewing the manuscript, the field editor determines whether to send it out for peer review. This stage is also completed within a maximum of 10 days. We assign the manuscript to two reviewers who are experts and experienced in the relevant field if we find it appropriate. Reviewers are given 15 days to complete their evaluations. If a reviewer foresees difficulty in meeting the deadline, they may request an extension or inform the editor that they are unable to review the manuscript due to time constraints. Such communication helps the editor reassign the manuscript without unnecessary delay.

If a reviewer does not submit their evaluation within the initial 15 days, a reminder email is sent and an additional 10-days extension is granted. Should the reviewer fail to respond, we withdraw their responsibility and reassign the manuscript to another reviewer. In cases where one reviewer accepts the manuscript and the other rejects it, the field editor carefully examines both reports, comparing the comments, perspectives, and justifications, and makes a decision based on the strength of the arguments. If the field editor is unable to reach a conclusive decision, a third reviewer is assigned.

A final decision on the manuscript is expected within 90 to 120 days from the date of submission. Following this period, we inform the authors of the editorial decision. Manuscripts that are accepted are scheduled for publication in the next issue of PedPer.

12. Publication Fee Policy (Free of Charge)

PedPer does not require any subscription, publication fee, or any other type of payment for accessing and/or using electronic information sources.

13. Language Policy

PedPer accepts articles written in both English and English-Turkish. Authors could use either British (-ise) or American spelling for their manuscript; however, one style should be used consistently throughout the manuscript. The manuscripts submitted to the journal should have a plain and clear language quality and be consistent with the scientific literature and English language rules. Manuscripts should be written fluently and free of foreign words.

14. Complaints & Appeals Policy

Only within 12 months of the first publication date will we accept complaints regarding any published materials. In case of any complaint, the authors are required to submit their complaints along with their reasons to the editorial office via the following email address: editor@pedagogicalperspective.com

15. Privacy Statement

Definition and Scope

Only the http://pedagogicalperspective.com website (henceforth referred to as the PedPer website) is subject to this privacy statement. We assume that your use of the PedPer website signifies your acceptance of this privacy policy statement. The PedPer website may contain links to other websites, and this policy statement is not valid for those websites. You should read those websites' privacy statements before using them.

Personal Information

The PedPer website does not collect or record information related to people’s identities, such as their names, surnames, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, or postal addresses. However, visitors’ IP addresses, information related to their browsers and operating systems, the time they spent on the PedPer website, and the pages they visited might be recorded for the purposes of statistical assessment, website maintenance, website administration, and improvement. Apart from legal obligations, we may not use the collected/recorded data for any other purpose or share it with third parties.

What is a Cookie?

A cookie is information kept in the form of small text files on your device (desktop, laptop, mobile, etc.) by a website you visited. The given website uses them to enhance your experience.

Our Cookie Policy

The PedPer website uses cookies for technical and analytical purposes only. Staying on the PedPer website will mean that you accepted the use of those cookies defined below.

Cookies used in the PedPer Website

Technical Cookies

These are the cookies that are required for the website to operate. These cookies include the session cookie and the language option cookie.

Third-Party Cookies

Google Analytics: These are the cookies used for the purposes of the website's improvement and performance analysis. Google manages these cookies. These third-party applications have their privacy policies. The PedPer website does not undertake any responsibility in relation to these third applications’ privacy policies. You may view the privacy policies of those applications on their official websites. For Google's privacy policy related to its products and services, please click on it.

Managing the Cookies

Almost all websites have settings for managing cookies. Most browsers default to accepting cookies. You can configure your browser to either block all cookies or notify you when a website sends a cookie. To learn how to change these settings, see your browser's official site or help documents.

Changing Our Privacy Policy

We may alter our privacy policy if we deem it necessary. We will announce the changes here, and the new policy will take effect immediately. For your questions and suggestions, please send your e-mails to: editor@pedagogicalperspective.com

16. Archiving Policy

Pedagogical Perspective uses the Open Journal System (OJS) developed by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP). PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN), integrated into the OJS system, provides archiving and digital preservation of articles published in PedPer. Developed in this direction, the LOCKSS program offers decentralized and distributed preservation, seamless perpetual access, and preservation of the authentic original version of the content. The PKP PN ensures that journals that are not part of any other digital preservation service (such as CLOCKSS or Portico) can be preserved for long-term access. See the PKP Preservation Network Guide for additional details about the PKP PN and how to use it.

17. Generative AI Policy

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer) does not oppose the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies, including large language models (LLMs), as supportive tools during the academic writing process. Authors may benefit from such technologies for tasks such as conceptual structuring, summarizing content, paraphrasing, and editing language. However, the outputs of these tools are inherently limited and cannot replace scholarly creativity or critical thinking. We therefore anticipate that authors will assess any content produced by AI critically to guarantee its appropriateness and scientific validity. PedPer mandates the explicit disclosure of all uses of generative AI. Any form of AI-generated content must be clearly stated under the relevant heading in the journal's manuscript template. While the use of such tools does not, in itself, constitute grounds for rejection, the nature and scope of the disclosure will be carefully reviewed by the Editorial Board and may influence the final publication decision.