This study investigates how education journals in Türkiye contribute to the circulation, accessibility, and practical uptake of academic knowledge in a rapidly changing global knowledge ecosystem. The research is motivated by the observation that education research increasingly operates within an environment shaped by open science mandates, international indexation pressures, digitalisation, artificial intelligence assisted publishing processes, and shifting expectations concerning the societal relevance of scholarly work. Although education journals serve as key mediators between knowledge production and its potential users, little empirical evidence exists regarding how they conceptualise and enact this role particularly in contexts where academic performance regimes and research evaluation systems strongly influence editorial practice.

The overarching research question guiding this study is: How do Turkish education journals facilitate, hinder, or unintentionally reshape the transfer of academic knowledge to educational practitioners?
To address this question, the study examines (1) the mission and orientation of education journals, (2) the extent to which published content supports practitioner engagement, and (3) how teachers themselves perceive, access, and (do not) use academic knowledge.

The conceptual framework integrates a micro–mezo–macro analytical model, which allows for a multilayered understanding of the knowledge ecosystem:

• Micro level (practitioners): Teacher perceptions, access patterns, and their evaluation of the usability of academic research.

• Mezo level (journals): Editorial orientations, peer-review practices, journal policies, and the thematic/methodological profile of recent publications.

• Macro level (knowledge governance): National and international structures shaping academic publication practices, including TÜBİTAK TR Dizin criteria, YÖK research evaluation systems, open science frameworks, and the influence of international indexation systems such as Scopus and Web of Science.

This framework positions journals not merely as neutral dissemination channels but as actors embedded within power-laden, policy-driven, and technologically mediated knowledge infrastructures. The study engages directly with European debates on open research, the role of scholarly communication in addressing societal challenges, and concerns about the fragmentation of scientific knowledge due to increasing performativity pressures.

In line with ECER’s 2026 theme on “Knowing and Acting,” the study critically interrogates how evolving knowledge conditions marked by digitalisation, big data, generative AI, and poly-crises shape the production and utilisation of educational knowledge. The findings aim to contribute to international conversations about how scholarly publishing can better support evidence-informed educational practice and democratic access to knowledge.

Through an empirical examination of the Turkish context, the research offers insights relevant beyond national borders. Many European education systems face similar tensions between academic prestige-oriented publishing and demands for practitioner-oriented, accessible, and actionable research. By situating Türkiye within this broader landscape, the study provides a comparative perspective on how national publication ecosystems interact with global knowledge infrastructures and shape the flow of educational knowledge.

This study employs a multiple case study design, focusing on five Turkish education journals selected through purposive sampling based on the following criteria: peer-reviewed and regularly published, open-access, indexed in TR Dizin and/or Scopus/Web of Science, and representing diverse missions. Data were collected from three complementary sources: Semi-structured Interviews (N = 20): 5 Editors-in-chief or associate editors from the selected journals, 5 Experienced reviewers representing different subfields, 10 Teachers from diverse school types and regions, selected to capture variation in research engagement Interview protocols explored perceptions of the purpose of educational research, strategies to enhance practitioner relevance, barriers to knowledge uptake, and the perceived impact of open science and publishing policies. Document Analysis: Journal policy documents including Aims & Scope, author guidelines, editorial policies, ethical statements, and open science declarations were analysed to identify stated commitments related to accessibility, societal relevance, and practitioner engagement. Content Analysis of Recent Issues: All articles published by the five journals within the last 12 months were analysed using a structured coding scheme capturing; article type, methodological approach, thematic focus, presence and quality of practitioner-oriented recommendations, clarity and accessibility of language, existence of plain-language or practice-oriented summaries. Analytic Strategy The study utilised the Braun & Clarke (2006) thematic analysis approach for interview and document data. Content analysis results were integrated into the thematic map to assess the alignment or misalignment between journal discourse and publishing practice. Findings were synthesised across the micro–mezo–macro levels to develop a systemic understanding of academic–practitioner knowledge flows.

The findings indicate a persistent and multilayered disconnect between academic knowledge production and its practical uptake by teachers. At the micro level, most teachers reported limited awareness of academic journals, difficulties accessing research, and challenges interpreting theory-heavy articles. Teachers tended to rely on informal digital sources social media, peer communities, personal networks rather than scholarly publications. At the mezo level, journal policies generally emphasised broad readership and societal contribution; however, actual publication practices revealed minimal practitioner engagement. Content analysis demonstrated that only a small proportion of articles included actionable recommendations or used accessible language. Editors attributed this gap to pressures from international indexation systems, expectations for methodological sophistication, and the perceived low prestige of practice-oriented submissions. At the macro level, national research evaluation frameworks and international publishing norms reinforced an incentive system that privileges theoretical, quantitatively oriented, and internationally appealing work over practitioner-focused research. This structural environment significantly shapes editorial decision-making and limits journals’ capacity to act as bridges between academia and practice. Collectively, these findings illustrate that the academic–practitioner divide is systemic rather than individual, shaped by interlocking institutional, political, and epistemic forces. The study calls for more explicit policy support for practitioner-oriented publishing, the adoption of plain-language summaries, the inclusion of dedicated practice sections in journals, and stronger collaboration between researchers and educators. By analysing Türkiye as a case embedded within global knowledge infrastructures, the study contributes to international debates on how scholarly publishing can better support evidence-informed educational improvement.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Biesta, G. (2007). Why “What Works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. Czerniewicz, L. (2016). Inequality in higher education and the role of academic publishing. AERA Open, 2(1), 1–12. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures. Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Harvard University Press. Mohrman, K., Ma, W., & Baker, D. (2008). The research university in transition. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 5–27. Montgomery, L. (2020). Open Knowledge Institutions. MIT Press. Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & Hayes, S. (2021). Making the academy relevant in uncertain times. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(9), 881–893. Whitty, G., & Wisby, E. (2017). Education research and policy: Thunder and sunshine? British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(1), 1–17.