Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review undergo a rigorous double-anonymous peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially screened by the Editorial Office and Editor to ensure that they:

  • comply with the journal's focus and scope;

  • follow the journal's author guidelines and manuscript format;

  • meet basic standards of academic quality and research ethics;

  • contain the required manuscript components;

  • demonstrate sufficient originality and relevance; and

  • comply with the journal's similarity and plagiarism policies.

Manuscripts that do not meet these initial requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or rejected without external peer review.

2. Assignment to an Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an appropriate Editor or Section Editor based on the subject area of the manuscript.

If the assigned Editor is an author or co-author of the manuscript, is affiliated with the same institution as one of the authors, has participated in the research, or has any other actual or potential conflict of interest, the manuscript will be reassigned to another qualified member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest.

3. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Each manuscript considered suitable for external review will normally be evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers who have relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Under the double-anonymous review system:

  • reviewers are not informed of the identities or affiliations of the authors;

  • authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers;

  • reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process; and

  • information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, publication record, methodological competence, and relevance to the topic of the submitted manuscript.

4. Conflict of Interest for Reviewers

Invited reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

A reviewer should decline the invitation if, for example, the reviewer:

  • has a close personal or professional relationship with the authors;

  • has collaborated or published with the authors recently;

  • has a direct institutional relationship that may affect impartiality;

  • has a financial or competitive interest related to the manuscript;

  • has been directly involved in the research being evaluated; or

  • believes that any other circumstance could compromise an objective and independent assessment.

When a conflict of interest is identified, the Editor will appoint another independent reviewer.

5. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively. The assessment normally considers:

  • originality and significance of the research;

  • clarity of the research problem and objectives;

  • relevance and adequacy of the literature review;

  • appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;

  • validity and clarity of the results;

  • depth and relevance of the discussion;

  • consistency between findings and conclusions;

  • theoretical and practical contributions;

  • ethical considerations;

  • quality of tables, figures, citations, and references; and

  • clarity, organization, and quality of academic writing.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments for the authors and a recommendation to the Editor.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

  1. Accept Submission — the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

  2. Revisions Required / Minor Revision — the manuscript requires limited revisions before it can be accepted.

  3. Resubmit for Review / Major Revision — substantial revision is required and the revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.

  4. Decline Submission — the manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in the journal.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor.

7. Editorial Decision

The Editor considers all reviewer reports, the quality of the manuscript, its relevance to the journal, ethical considerations, and compliance with editorial standards when making the final decision.

Editors are not required to follow the majority recommendation of reviewers. A significant methodological, ethical, originality, or scholarly concern identified by one reviewer or by the Editor may be sufficient to request substantial revision or reject a manuscript.

If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor may:

  • independently assess the points raised;

  • request clarification from the reviewers;

  • invite an additional reviewer; or

  • make an editorial decision based on the available evidence.

The Editor's decision may be:

  • Accept Submission;

  • Revisions Required;

  • Resubmit for Review; or

  • Decline Submission.

8. Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.

For minor revisions, the Editor may evaluate the revised manuscript directly.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript will normally be returned to the original reviewers or, where necessary, sent to other qualified reviewers for further evaluation.

More than one round of review may be conducted when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and ethical standards.

9. Final Decision

After the review and revision process has been completed, the Editor will make the final decision regarding publication.

Acceptance is based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and contribution of the manuscript to the field.

Authors will receive the editorial decision together with relevant anonymous reviewer comments.

10. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not:

  • disclose information about a submitted manuscript to unauthorized persons;

  • distribute or reproduce manuscript content without permission;

  • use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal research or advantage; or

  • contact authors directly regarding the manuscript without authorization from the Editorial Office.

Reviewer identities will remain confidential unless disclosure is required by applicable ethical procedures or agreed upon by the journal, reviewer, and relevant parties.

11. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based solely on the academic merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical integrity, relevance, and contribution of the manuscript.

Decisions are made without discrimination based on authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, political views, or other personal characteristics.

Members of the Editorial Board who submit manuscripts to the journal receive no preferential treatment and are excluded from all editorial and peer-review processes related to their own submissions.

12. Publication Ethics

EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, confidentiality, impartiality, and independence of the peer-review process. Editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to comply with internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and responsible scholarly publishing.