Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The Journal of Education Innovation and Practice is committed to ensuring the quality of the articles it publishes through a rigorous peer-review process. This process helps to identify valid research that has a significant impact in the field of education. As a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, JEIP relies on expert feedback from reviewers to ensure that the papers published meet the highest standards.  Authors receive feedback from reviewers, which they can use to refine and improve their manuscripts.

Initial evaluation stage

All new submissions are evaluated to ensure they meet the guidelines outlined in the Authors Guide. Those that pass are then considered by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Committee for peer review. If an article is rejected at the initial evaluation stage, the authors will typically be notified within two weeks of receipt.

Peer review stage

According to our policy, each article is evaluated by two independent reviewers who can either accept the article without any modification, with minor modifications, with substantial amendments or reject the article. The reviewers are selected by the editorial committee, but the authors' names are kept confidential to encourage unbiased and honest reviews. The reviewers are asked to provide anonymous comments to the author and can also provide confidential comments to the editor. If the reviewers' reports contradict one another or a report is unduly delayed, a third expert opinion will be sought. The peer review process typically takes around one month, depending on the availability of reviewers.

After the review process, authors are required to work on a revised version of their article based on the review comments and feedback. They are given a timeframe of around a week or two, depending on the changes required. If the required amendments are substantial, the author is granted a longer period, which may stretch up to a month.

The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a specific paper is made by the Editor-in-Chief and the journal's Editorial Committee, considering the peer reviewers' recommendations and opinions. The author is notified about the final decision within a period ranging between a month to a maximum of three months from the submission date.

Reviewer’s role                      

Reviewing a research article is a crucial responsibility, and it demands a considerable amount of time. Therefore, JEIP's Editorial Board, authors, and audience are grateful to the referees who are willing to undertake this responsibility with dedication. JEIP follows a double-blind peer review process that is both rapid and fair and guarantees the publication of high-quality articles. For this reason, JEIP needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted articles within a turnaround time of two weeks to one month. The maintenance of JEIP as a journal of high quality is dependent on reviewers' objectivity and fairness in evaluating articles.

How the reviewers are selected

The selection of reviewers is a crucial step in the publication process, and we base our selection on several criteria, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and our own previous experience with reviewers. The reviewer is required to assess the quality of the research, analyze and evaluate the validity of its assumptions, and determine the work's significance in the field.

Using the online review system

The Open Journal System (OJS) is used to facilitate the peer review and editorial processes. When the Editor-in-Chief initiates a review request, the system sends an email notification to the reviewer. The online system will also notify the reviewer about any delays in the reviewing stage and confirm a successful review submission. The email notifications contain stepwise instructions about the actions needed at each stage, along with the link to the manuscript, which is only accessible after login.

Writing the review report

The primary purpose of reviewing is to provide us with the information needed to reach a decision. The review should also provide constructive feedback to the authors, outlining areas where they can improve their paper to make it acceptable for publication.

If the manuscript is rejected, the review should provide a clear explanation to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript so that they can understand the basis for the decision and what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication.

• Review reports are required to provide in-depth feedback covering the following four areas:
• Scholarly quality: the quality and depth of research; originality of the contribution and the strength of the argument.
• Literary quality: the writing style and structure, including paragraphing, language, syntax, and flow.
• Use of resources: proper referencing, relevant sources, and relationship to the text.
• Benefit to the readers and the advancement of the field: how the manuscript contributes to the field and its potential impact.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor. Any privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews are conducted objectively without any personal criticism of the author. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers are required to identify any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. If an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported, a relevant citation must be provided. If a reviewer has personal knowledge of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper, they should bring it to the attention of the editor.

Conflict of interest

Reviewers should refuse the invitation to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the papers. If reviewers feel they cannot provide an unbiased evaluation of the research presented in a manuscript, they should decline the invitation to review it.

Handling ethical concerns

Sometimes reviewers may discover serious ethical breaches during the review such as noticing that all or part of the paper has been previously published by the same or other authors, or finding text or ideas that have been copied without permission or appropriate attribution from others' works. When such cases of suspected duplicative publication or plagiarism arise, reviewers should obtain and carefully examine copies of the original documents to confirm and inform their initial impression of the journal.

The Journal of Education Innovation and Practice (JEIP) follows the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the COPE Flowcharts for Resolving Cases of Suspected Misconduct.