Peer-Review Policies

Peer-Review Policies

Peer Review Policy

International Journal of Current Educational Studies (IJCES)

The International Journal of Current Educational Studies (IJCES) employs a double-blind peer review system to ensure fairness, objectivity, and scholarly integrity in the evaluation of all submitted manuscripts. Both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the process. This policy safeguards against bias and promotes an equitable evaluation based solely on academic merit.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review serves as a critical quality control mechanism in academic publishing. It ensures that:

  • Research meets recognized standards of excellence and scientific rigor.

  • Methods, analyses, and conclusions are valid, reliable, and clearly presented.

  • The manuscript makes a significant and original contribution to the field of education.

  • Ethical and methodological standards are upheld.

2. Overview of the Double-Blind Process

In the double-blind system:

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

  • The editorial office removes identifying information from manuscripts prior to review.

This confidentiality fosters impartial evaluation and encourages honest and constructive feedback.

3. Stages of the Peer Review Process

Stage 1: Submission and Initial Screening

All manuscripts are submitted via the IJCES online submission platform. The Editorial Office screens each submission for compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and ethical standards (including plagiarism check with maximum tolerance in 10% using tools such as Turnitin or iThenticate).

Manuscripts that fail to meet basic requirements are returned to authors for revision or declined prior to review.

Stage 2: Assignment to Editor

After passing the initial screening, manuscripts are assigned to a Handling Editor or Section Editor who has subject expertise in the paper’s area. The editor evaluates the paper’s scholarly relevance, novelty, and methodological soundness before selecting reviewers.

Stage 3: Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is typically reviewed by two independent reviewers (sometimes three, in the case of conflicting evaluations). Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and absence of conflict of interest.

Stage 4: Double-Blind Review

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to IJCES’s review criteria, including:

  • Originality and contribution to educational theory or practice

  • Methodological adequacy and clarity

  • Coherence of argument and organization

  • Theoretical grounding and relevance of literature

  • Significance of findings and conclusions

Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommend one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept

  2. Minor Revision

  3. Major Revision

  4. Reject

Stage 5: Decision and Revision

The Handling Editor consolidates reviewer comments and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision. Authors receive anonymized reviewer feedback and are invited to submit a revised version, addressing all comments with a detailed response letter.

Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for verification, depending on the extent of revisions.

Stage 6: Final Acceptance and Publication

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, formatting, and proofing. Authors must approve the final version before publication. The article is then published online under the Open Access CC BY 4.0 License.

4. Reviewer Guidelines and Ethics

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and confidentially.

  • Provide constructive, respectful, and detailed feedback.

  • Declare any potential conflict of interest.

  • Avoid using or disclosing the manuscript content before publication.

IJCES follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to ensure fairness and accountability throughout the process.

5. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal a decision may submit a written request to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of notification. Appeals must provide clear justification, addressing potential misunderstandings or factual errors. The editorial board will conduct an independent evaluation and issue a final decision.

6. Average Review Timeline

IJCES strives to ensure a timely and rigorous review process:

  • Initial Screening: 1 weeks

  • Peer Review: 2-3 weeks

  • Revision and Re-review: 2–4 weeks

  • Final Decision: 1 week

Total estimated time from submission to final decision: 6-9 weeks, depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability.