Peer review policy

Educational Research & Implementation (EduRE) is committed to a fair, timely, rigorous, and confidential peer-review process that supports scholarly quality, editorial independence, and research integrity. EduRE applies a double-blind peer-review model in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another throughout the review process.

1) Peer Review Model

  • EduRE uses double-blind peer review for research and review submissions.
  • Reviewers are selected for their subject expertise, independence, and ability to provide an objective scholarly assessment.
  • Reviewer recommendations are advisory; final editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the journal.

2) Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor to assess:

  • fit with the journal’s aims and scope;
  • originality and potential scholarly contribution;
  • basic quality and readiness for peer review;
  • compliance with the journal’s ethical, formatting, and submission requirements.

Manuscripts may be desk-rejected at this stage if they fall outside the journal’s scope, do not meet minimum academic or ethical standards, or are not sufficiently prepared for external review.

3) Similarity Screening and Research Integrity Checks

EduRE may conduct similarity screening (for example, using iThenticate) and other research integrity checks before or during peer review. Concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate submission, data integrity, authorship irregularities, or other ethical issues may result in clarification requests, rejection, or further investigation in accordance with journal policy.

4) Reviewer Selection and Independence

  • A minimum of two independent external reviewers is normally required for a standard evaluation.
  • Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, independence, and availability.
  • Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation.

5) Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and related materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share, distribute, or use manuscript content for any purpose other than legitimate editorial and peer-review evaluation.

6) Conflicts of Interest

  • Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest, including recent collaboration, shared institutional affiliation, personal relationship, financial interest, or other circumstance that could affect objectivity, and must decline review where appropriate.
  • Editors must also declare conflicts of interest. Where a conflict exists, the editor will recuse themselves and the manuscript will be reassigned to another appropriate editor.

7) Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts with reference to the following criteria:

  • relevance to the journal’s scope;
  • originality, significance, and contribution to the field;
  • methodological rigor and ethical compliance;
  • clarity of presentation and coherence of argument;
  • validity of interpretations and conclusions;
  • adequacy and relevance of references.

8) Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, and the overall quality and integrity of the manuscript. Possible decisions include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the journal may seek an additional independent review or make a decision based on editorial evaluation of the reports and the manuscript.

9) Timeline (Target)

EduRE aims to provide an initial editorial decision within 45 days of submission. This timeline is a target rather than a guarantee and may vary depending on reviewer availability, revision rounds, and the complexity of the manuscript.

10) Revisions and Re-Review

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to submit:

  • a revised manuscript; and
  • a detailed Response to Reviewers explaining how each comment was addressed or, where relevant, why a different approach was taken.

Major revisions may be returned to one or more reviewers for additional review.

11) Ethical Issues and Misconduct

Concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabricated or falsified data, authorship manipulation, citation manipulation, compromised peer review, or other forms of publication misconduct are handled in accordance with the journal’s Ethics Policy, Plagiarism Policy, and Article Policy.

12) Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers are expected to provide respectful, constructive, evidence-based, and timely assessments. Reviewers must not use confidential manuscript content for personal advantage and must not upload confidential manuscripts or review materials to external generative AI tools or systems that may compromise confidentiality or intellectual property.

Last updated: 2026-02-23