Policies

Peer review process

How manuscripts are screened, reviewed and decided.

  • Aligned with COPE Core Practices
  • 3 min read
On this page

At a glance

  • Independent experts review every research article.
  • The editor decides on the weight of the reviews, not on a vote count.
  • Manuscripts and reviews stay confidential throughout.
Review model
Double anonymous
Time to review
4 weeks
Acceptance rate
87%
Submission to publication
38 days (median)

Peer review is the heart of Journal of Education and Teaching Learning's quality assurance. Every research article is assessed by independent experts before a decision is made, and editors take care that the process is fair, confidential and as quick as rigour allows.

Review model

The review model is set by the editors and stated in the author guidelines. In a double-anonymous review neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identity, so authors must remove names, affiliations and identifying self-citations from the manuscript file. In a single-anonymous review the reviewers know who the authors are.

Steps from submission to decision

  1. Initial check: the editorial office checks scope, completeness, the author guidelines, ethics statements and similarity with existing work. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements are returned or declined without review, usually within a few days.
  2. Editor assignment: a handling editor without conflicts of interest takes charge of the manuscript.
  3. Reviewer invitation: the editor invites at least two independent reviewers, chosen for their expertise. Reviewers are not from the authors' institution and have not co-authored with them recently.
  4. Review: reviewers assess originality, significance, methods, analysis, interpretation, references, ethics and clarity, and recommend accept, minor revision, major revision or decline.
  5. Decision: the editor weighs the reviews (not a vote count) and makes the decision, inviting another reviewer when reviews disagree.
  6. Revision: authors revise and reply to every comment point by point. Major revisions usually go back to the reviewers.
  7. Acceptance and production: accepted articles are copyedited, typeset and checked by the authors before publication.

Decisions

  • Accept: the manuscript can be published as it is or with minor editing.
  • Minor revision: small changes are needed; the editor checks them.
  • Major revision: substantial changes are needed; the revised version is reviewed again.
  • Decline: the manuscript is not suitable for the journal. Authors receive the reasons and the reviewers' comments.

Confidentiality and integrity

  • Manuscripts, reviews and editorial correspondence are confidential.
  • Reviewers and editors must not use what they read for their own work or share it with others.
  • Editors never handle their own manuscripts; submissions from editors or board members go to another editor and are reviewed like any other.
  • Manipulating peer review (for example suggesting fake reviewers) leads to rejection or retraction.

Timing

The editors aim to keep review times short and tell authors about any delay. Authors can follow the progress of their manuscript at any time and may contact the editorial office at [email protected] if a step takes much longer than expected.

Journal-specific terms

Reviewer's Responsibilities Assistance in editorial process

Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication. It assists editors in making editorial decisions and helps authors improve their manuscripts. The journal shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Timeliness

If reviewers should feel unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or affirm that they cannot meet the deadline for completion of the review, they should immediately notify the editor and excuse themselves from the process of reviewing this manuscript so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Reviewers should treat the manuscript in a confidential manner. The manuscript should not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Objectivity

Reviewers should approach the peer-review job objectively. Their observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that the authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript either published or under consideration by another journal. Reviewers should also identify any relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

Conflicts of interest and disclosure

Reviewers should inform the editor and recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript if there is a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Reviewers should not use any part of any data or work reported in submitted or yet unpublished articles in their own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Official references

This policy follows these published standards and guidelines. Each link opens the original source.