Review Process

Peer-Review Process for Authors

Education and Science employs a double-blind peer review system that ensures the identities of both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other. Each manuscript is rigorously evaluated by at least two independent reviewers and the journal editors.

The review process includes the following steps:

  1. Preliminary Check: The submitted manuscript is first examined by the editor-in-chief to determine its suitability for review. Manuscripts deemed suitable are assigned to a section editor. The preliminary check by the editor-in-chief covers criteria such as alignment with the journal’s aim and scope, publication quality, language adequacy, adherence to ethical standards, and conflict of interest considerations.
  2. Initial Screening: Manuscripts lacking sufficient scientific merit, originality, or relevance to the target audience may be excluded from the peer review process.
  3. Peer Review: Manuscripts approved by the editor-in-chief and/or section editor are sent to at least two reviewers for evaluation.
  4. Editorial Review: The section editor reviews the evaluations completed by the reviewers and makes a recommendation to the editor-in-chief regarding the manuscript’s outcome.
  5. Final Decision: The editor-in-chief makes the ultimate decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript.

Appeals and Complaints

The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines concerning appeals and complaints related to the peer review process. Appeals against editorial decisions are accepted. However, authors are required to provide strong evidence, additional information, and data in their appeal letters.

Authors may send their appeal letters to [email protected]. It is recommended that appeal letters include (if applicable):

  • Reasons for the appeal,
  • Details of any technical errors,
  • Causes of disagreements or disputes,
  • Evidence regarding conflicts of interest,
  • Additional or new references, evidence, information, and data.

Editors will respond to appeals within two months. They may reject or accept the manuscript, request revisions, or initiate an additional review process. All decisions regarding appeals are final.

Manuscript Withdrawal

Manuscripts that have entered the peer review process cannot be withdrawn. However, if the peer review process is delayed for more than six months, authors have the right to withdraw their manuscripts. The corresponding author may request withdrawal by sending an email to [email protected].

Peer-Review Process for Editors and Reviewers

Technical Check (by the editorial office):

  • Verification of formatting requirements
  • Checking completeness of all necessary information
  • Review of files, forms, documents, and declarations

Preliminary Review by the Editor-in-Chief:
The manuscript is assessed for:

  • Alignment with the journal’s aim, focus, and scope
  • Publication quality
  • Language quality
  • Ethical standards compliance
  • Conflict of interest considerations

The editor-in-chief may reject the manuscript or forward it to section editors.

Section Editors’ Review:

  • Identification of objective errors
  • Language issues (grammar, spelling, and relevant scientific terminology)
  • Research quality assessment
  • Evaluation of compliance with ethical standards

Section editors may reject the manuscript or send it for peer review.

Peer Review Process:

  • Declaration of conflicts of interest (If conflicts exist, the editorial office evaluates the situation and assigns reviewers if deemed appropriate, following COPE guidelines.)
  • Detailed evaluation of the manuscript
  • Quality assessment covering research question, hypothesis, theoretical framework, relevance to scientific literature, methodology, scientific standards, language and presentation, strengths and weaknesses
  • Providing constructive feedback to improve the study or presentation of results
  • Recommendation of one of four options:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revision
    • Major Revision
    • Reject
  • Preparation of a review report including:
    • Supporting comments with literature citations where appropriate
    • Annotations on the full-text PDF
  • Provision of confidential comments to editors, not shared with authors

Sample questions reviewers may consider during evaluation:

Title

  • Does it accurately reflect the study?
  • Is the length appropriate?
  • Does it contain abbreviations that may hinder understanding?

Abstract

  • Does it provide a reasonable summary of the study?
  • For quantitative studies, does it include data?

Introduction

  • Is sufficient background information provided?
  • Is the study’s purpose clearly stated?
  • Is the rationale for the study clearly explained?
  • Is the hypothesis clearly expressed?

Methods

  • Are data collection methods adequately described and appropriate?
  • Is the methodology reproducible?
  • Are participant numbers sufficient and properly calculated for valid conclusions?
  • Are proper controls used?
  • Are statistical analyses appropriate and sufficient?
  • Has ethical approval been obtained?

Results

  • Are data presented adequately?
  • Are there data presented that were not described in the methods?
  • Are numbers consistent between tables and text?
  • Is there unnecessary repetition between text and tables/figures?
  • Are tables and figures sufficient and necessary?
  • Are tables/figures correctly titled?

Discussion

  • Are results sufficiently discussed in light of relevant literature?
  • Is there unnecessary speculation?
  • Are limitations of the study acknowledged?
  • Are conclusions and recommendations provided?

Overall Evaluation

  • Is the topic within the scope of the journal?
  • Is the topic current and significant?
  • Is the manuscript language acceptable?
  • Are the references up to date?

Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

  • Have the authors responded adequately to reviewer comments?
  • Are the revisions acceptable?
  • Have authors explained any recommendations they did not follow?

Final Decision for Publication

  • After revisions are completed and/or the final manuscript is submitted, section editors forward their publication recommendations to the editor-in-chief. Multiple rounds of peer review may occur before a final decision.
  • The editor-in-chief evaluates section editors’ recommendations and makes the final decision, which is communicated to the authors. Manuscripts are either accepted or rejected.
  • If accepted, the production team prepares the manuscript for publication.