Studies in Learning and Teaching (SiBET) is a refereed international journal of education (learning and teaching). SiBET published four times a year (in February, May, August, and November).

PUBLISHING PRINCIPLES

1. The journal accepts articles employing a variety of bibliometric approaches, including quantitative, qualitative interpretative, and mixed-methods in the analysis of scholarly publications.
2. Articles that develop or apply innovative bibliometric techniques, such as network visualization, co-word analysis, co-citation analysis, or other forms of scientific mapping are highly encouraged.
3. Studies based on meta-analysis and systematic reviews using bibliometric approaches are given priority.
4. Articles must be original and not previously published elsewhere. If an article has been presented at a seminar or conference, the name of the event, the hosting institution, and the date of presentation must be clearly stated.
5. SiBET prioritizes up-to-date bibliometric research that makes use of advanced analytical tools (e.g., VOSviewer, Bibliometrix, CiteSpace, or similar software) and state-of-the-art statistical methods.
6. Original contributions to the advancement of bibliometric studies and methodological rigor are the main criteria for publication.
7. Authors are fully responsible for the originality, accuracy of data (e.g., from Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, or other bibliographic sources), and content of their published articles.
8. Articles may not be cited without proper reference to SiBET as the source of publication and acknowledgment of the author(s).
9. The journal is published in English; therefore, all manuscripts must be written in English.

EVALUATION OF SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT AND PUBLICATION PROCESS

A. Evaluation of Editorial Board

1. Manuscripts submitted to SiBET are initially reviewed by the editorial board to evaluate their purpose, scope, content, writing style, and technical quality.
2. Papers that pass this preliminary review are forwarded to referees for further evaluation.
3. When necessary, the editorial board may also seek input from external experts (anonymous readers) prior to the referee review, and final decisions may be made based on their feedback.

B. Pre-assessment criteria of Editorial Board

1. Bibliometric manuscripts that rely only on simple descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentages, or basic correlations are generally not accepted during the preliminary assessment.
2. Studies focusing on the development or adaptation of bibliometric tools (e.g., mapping techniques, software frameworks, or indicators) will be evaluated based on their originality, scope, dataset quality, and the rigor of their reliability and validity testing to determine whether they can stand as independent contributions.
3. Empirical bibliometric research should be detailed, comprehensive, and where possible, complemented with interpretative or contextual insights that go beyond numerical reporting.
4. For bibliometric studies with qualitative components (e.g., content analysis, thematic coding of publication trends), the credibility, validity, and depth of the analysis are crucial.
5. The journal encourages analytical bibliometric studies that address significant issues in scientific research and propose informed solutions. However, such manuscripts should go beyond being a simple literature review or descriptive report.
6. For mixed-method bibliometric research (e.g., combining citation analysis with interviews or surveys), authors must clearly justify the rationale for using this approach and explain how the methods complement each other.

C. Referee Evaluation Process

1. Manuscripts that successfully pass the Editorial Board’s initial assessment are forwarded to two experts in the relevant field for a double-blind peer review. In cases where the reviewers reach conflicting conclusions about the quality of the work, a third reviewer is consulted. Papers with favorable referee reports are considered for publication.
2. All referee evaluations are treated as confidential. Authors are expected to carefully address the comments, recommendations, and corrections provided by both the reviewers and the Editorial Board.
3. Articles are sent to reviewers together with an evaluation form aligned with research methodology. Based on the reports from the Editorial Advisory Board members, a decision is made regarding publication.
4. Reviewers are required to present their feedback clearly, in detail, and in a scientifically sound manner regarding the criteria listed in the evaluation form as well as other relevant issues. Reports that only involve ticking boxes without adequate explanation are not regarded as valid evaluations.

D. Transparency

1. All correspondence between authors and editors, along with the evaluation process involving the Editorial Board and referees, is conducted transparently. However, direct communication between the Editorial Board, referees, and the author regarding a manuscript is not permitted. In every case, referee identities remain anonymous and are never disclosed to authors.
2. If a referee identifies potential issues related to ethics, data integrity, or academic conflicts within a study, they are expected to report these concerns directly to the editor.
3. In addition to ensuring a fair and consistent evaluation process, editors may request referees to comment on one another’s reports in order to enhance the academic value of feedback provided to the author. At this stage as well, the identities of referees are kept strictly confidential. All evaluations are conducted according to the established criteria.

E. Selection of Referees

1. The selection of referees is influenced by several factors, with the most important being their expertise and the relevance of their field of study.
2. Authors may request that their manuscript not be assigned to certain referees due to potential conflicts of interest, and such requests must be indicated at the time of submission to SiBET.
3. The referee list is reviewed and updated regularly, taking into account the performance and contributions of reviewers.

F. Referee’s Roles

1. Referees are expected to first check the document they receive to ensure that it can be accessed properly.
2. They should promptly inform the editor whether they are able to review the study, taking into account both the allotted timeframe and the relevance of the topic to their expertise.
3. If a referee feels unable to provide an objective evaluation due to a conflict of interest, they must immediately notify the editor and decline the review.
4. Reviewers should carefully read the editor’s accompanying note, as the editor may request feedback on specific parts of the manuscript, such as the methodology section.
5. If a referee intends to seek assistance from another reviewer, they must inform the editor and provide the name of that individual.

G. Writing Report

1. Referees should assess whether the research data and findings are logically consistent with the study’s central argument.
2. They should evaluate whether the study makes an original and meaningful contribution to the field.
3. Reviews must be critical, fair, and objective.
4. Referees are expected to assess the manuscript itself, not the personal competencies or background of the authors.
5. In addition to completing the evaluation form, referees should provide detailed written feedback.
6. Negative evaluations must include clear explanations of the study’s weaknesses and the reasons for recommending rejection.
7. Editors have the right to correct errors, inappropriate statements, or inaccurate information found in referee reports or author declarations.

H. Time

1. Referees are given 15 days to complete their evaluation of a manuscript.
2. If a referee is unable to finish the review within the allotted time, they should either request an extension or inform the editor that they cannot complete the task.
3. Prompt notification helps avoid unnecessary delays for the author and allows the editor to assign an alternative referee in a timely manner.

I. Conflict of Interest

1. Authors may request that certain individuals not be assigned as referees due to potential conflicts of interest.
2. The Editorial Board expects referees to notify the editor of any circumstances that could compromise their ability to provide an unbiased review.

J. Broadcasting Policy and Ethical Values

1. Even though the Editorial Board and Editor thoroughly review a manuscript, some outliers or ethical issues may go unnoticed. When expert referees identify such concerns, it is important that they promptly alert the Editorial Board or Editor.

K. Feedback to Referees

1. The final version of a manuscript approved for publication is shown only to referees who wish to review it again. If a referee does not request to see the final version, the editor determines whether the requested changes have been adequately addressed.
2. After publication, a referee may feel that their feedback was not fully incorporated into the manuscript. In such cases, it is possible that other referees provided differing opinions, which the editor also considered. If desired, the differing referee reports can be shared with the original referee.
3. Based on the referees’ recommendations, the Editorial Board may decide to:

1. Approve the study for publication, possibly requesting minor or major revisions.
2. Require a new review process after the authors reorganize the manuscript according to the referees’ feedback.
3. Reject the manuscript.