Peer review policy

Educational Research & Implementation (EduRE) is committed to a fair, timely, and rigorous peer-review process that supports research quality and integrity. EduRE applies a double-blind peer-review model: authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process.

1. Peer Review Model

  • Double-blind peer review is used for all research and review submissions.

  • The journal aims to ensure impartial evaluation by selecting independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

2. Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

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

  • fit with the journal’s aims and scope,

  • originality and scholarly contribution,

  • compliance with ethical standards and journal policies, and

  • basic quality requirements.
    Manuscripts may be desk-rejected (rejected without external review) at this stage.

3. Similarity Screening and Research Integrity Checks

EduRE is committed to ethical publishing. Submissions may undergo similarity screening (iThenticate) and additional research integrity checks where necessary. Manuscripts with serious ethical concerns may be rejected prior to peer review or investigated according to the journal’s ethics policies.

4. Reviewer Selection and Independence

  • A minimum of two independent external reviewers is normally required for a standard evaluation.

  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and ability to provide an objective assessment.

  • Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation.

5. Confidentiality

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

6. Conflicts of Interest (COI)

  • Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest (e.g., recent collaboration, same institution, personal relationships, financial interests) and decline review when a conflict exists.

  • Editors must also declare conflicts of interest. If an editor has a conflict, they will recuse themselves and the manuscript will be reassigned to another editor to ensure an impartial process.

7. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • relevance to the journal’s scope,

  • originality and significance,

  • methodological rigor and ethical compliance,

  • clarity of presentation and validity of conclusions, and

  • adequacy of references and contribution to the literature.

8. Editorial Decisions

Decisions are based on the Editor’s assessment of reviewer reports and overall manuscript quality. Possible decisions include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject
    If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, an additional independent review may be requested.

9. Timeline (Target)

EduRE aims to provide an initial editorial decision within 45 days of submission. Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, revision rounds, and the complexity of the evaluation.

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 point was addressed.
    Major revisions may be sent for additional rounds of peer review.

11. Ethical Issues and Misconduct

Concerns related to plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication/falsification, authorship manipulation, or compromised peer review are handled according to EduRE’s ethics policies and may result in rejection or further action.