Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

1. General Provisions

The Editorial Board adheres to the principles of impartiality, transparency, academic integrity, and confidentiality in the evaluation of scholarly manuscripts. All submitted articles undergo mandatory peer review to ensure high scholarly quality and compliance with international standards of academic publishing.

Only manuscripts that demonstrate clear scholarly novelty, theoretical or practical value, and alignment with the journal’s thematic focus are accepted for publication.

2. Type of Peer Review

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, under which:

  • authors do not know the identities of the reviewers;
  • reviewers do not know the identities of the authors;
  • all identifying information is removed from the manuscript text and file properties prior to review.

This approach ensures impartiality and independence in expert evaluation.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

At the first stage, the Editorial Board conducts an initial editorial screening of manuscripts to verify:

  • compliance with the journal’s scope;
  • adherence to formatting and structural requirements;
  • originality of the text (screening for plagiarism and self-plagiarism);
  • compliance with academic ethical standards.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be rejected or returned to the authors for revision without being sent for peer review.

4. Peer Review Procedure

4.1. Appointment of Reviewers

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the journal’s scope and the subject matter of the submission. Reviewers may be:

  • members of the Editorial Board;
  • external experts (national or international).

A reviewer may decline the invitation to review in the case of a conflict of interest or insufficient expertise. In such cases, the Editorial Board appoints another expert.

4.2. Review Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following groups of criteria:

  1. Scientific significance and contribution of the study
    • relevance of the topic to contemporary educational research;
    • clarity of the research problem;
    • level of scientific novelty;
    • contribution to the development of educational theory, methodology, or practice.
  2. Theoretical grounding
    • relevance and currency of sources used;
    • integration of the study into the international research context;
    • conceptual clarity and coherence of the theoretical framework.
  3. Methodological quality
    • alignment of methods with research aims and questions;
    • adequacy of the description of the sample and procedures;
    • validity and reliability of instruments;
    • appropriateness of the data analysis methods.
  4. Quality of analysis and interpretation
    • depth of analytical work;
    • validity and robustness of the conclusions;
    • consistency of the findings with previous research;
    • identification of research limitations.
  5. Structure and academic quality of the manuscript
    • logical organization;
    • coherence of argumentation;
    • academic writing style;
    • accuracy of citations and formatting.
  6. Ethical compliance
    • adherence to ethical standards in publication.

Evaluation is conducted through a standardized review form including detailed comments and recommendations.

5. Editorial Decisions

Based on the results of peer review, the Editorial Board may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revisions.
  • Accept with minor revisions.
  • Revise and resubmit (major revisions followed by a new round of peer review).
  • Reject the manuscript.
  • Recommend submission to another journal.

The Editorial Board provides authors with anonymized review reports.

6. Re-Review

If revisions are required, the author submits a revised version of the manuscript along with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript:

  • is reviewed again by the same reviewers, or
  • by decision of the Editorial Board, by an independent expert.

If the author fails to submit the revised manuscript within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Board and does not provide a justified explanation for the delay, the manuscript may be withdrawn from consideration.

7. Appeals Procedure

Authors have the right to submit a justified appeal if they disagree with reviewers’ comments. The appeal must be submitted in the format: “Reviewer’s comment – Author’s response.”

The Editorial Board considers the appeal jointly with the reviewer(s) or appoints an additional independent expert to make a final decision.

8. Confidentiality and Ethical Principles

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers are prohibited from:

  • copying materials from the manuscript;
  • using ideas or research results from the manuscript prior to publication.

The Editorial Board adheres to international publication ethics standards and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage if violations of ethical standards or academic integrity are identified.

9. Responsibilities of the Parties

Authors bear full responsibility for the content of their articles and the accuracy of the data presented.
Reviewers are responsible for providing an impartial and professional evaluation.
The Editorial Board coordinates the peer review process and makes the final decision regarding publication.