Peer Review & Complaints Policy

Peer Review Policy: 

The International Journal of Educational Methodology (IJEM) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. All research articles, review articles, and other academic contributions submitted to IJEM are subject to editorial screening and peer review prior to publication. IJEM is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, editorial independence, transparency, and ethical integrity in all stages of the publication process.

Peer Review Model

IJEM employs a double-blind peer review model. In this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the entire review process. Authors are required to submit anonymized manuscripts and ensure that all identifying information is removed from the manuscript text, references, acknowledgements, and supplementary files.

A diagram that illustrates the review and publishing process can be seen below.

Editorial Roles and Responsibilities

Editor-in-Chief (EiC): The Editor-in-Chief holds overall responsibility for the journal’s editorial policy, ethical standards, and the integrity of the peer review process. The EiC has final authority over editorial decisions and may either handle manuscripts directly or delegate the peer review process to a qualified Handling Editor or Associate Editor, while retaining full editorial oversight.

Handling Editor / Associate Editor: The Handling Editor or Associate Editor manages the peer review process for assigned manuscripts. This role includes selecting and inviting reviewers, monitoring the review process, evaluating reviewer reports, and making a reasoned recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial Office: The Editorial Office performs technical and administrative checks, including completeness of submissions, adherence to formatting and policy requirements, and coordination of communication between editors, reviewers, and authors.

External Reviewers: External reviewers provide independent, confidential, and constructive evaluations of manuscripts. Reviewers advise the editors by assessing the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of submissions, but they do not make final publication decisions.

Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Evaluation)

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling/Associate Editor. This evaluation assesses:

• alignment with the journal’s aims and scope,

• originality and relevance to the field of educational sciences,

• basic methodological and ethical soundness, and

• compliance with submission guidelines and formatting requirements.

Manuscripts may be desk rejected at this stage if they are outside the scope of the journal, insufficiently original, contain serious scientific or methodological flaws, or fail to meet basic quality standards. Authors are normally informed of desk decisions within 2–3 weeks of receipt.

It is rare but possible that non-standard content (such as invited editorials or editor-commissioned contributions) may proceed without external peer review; such cases are clearly identified and documented. Standard research articles are not accepted for publication at the screening stage without peer review.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent for external peer review. As a standard practice, at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise are invited to evaluate each manuscript.

How Reviewers Are Selected 

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated Handling/Associate Editor based on their scholarly expertise, research background, and publication record relevant to the submitted manuscript. IJEM maintains a database of potential reviewers covering diverse subfields of educational research. This database is regularly updated to ensure breadth of expertise and international representation.

Before inviting a reviewer, editors carefully assess potential conflicts of interest, including recent collaboration with the authors, institutional affiliation, or any personal, professional, or financial relationships that could affect objectivity. Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflict of interest upon invitation and must decline the review if such a conflict exists.

Author-suggested reviewers may be considered at the editor’s discretion; however, authors do not participate in the final selection of reviewers, and reviewer appointment is not guaranteed based on author suggestions.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

• is original and contributes meaningfully to educational research,

• makes a clear theoretical and/or empirical contribution,

• is methodologically sound and well designed,

• follows appropriate ethical standards and guidelines,

• presents results clearly and supports its conclusions, and

• appropriately cites relevant and current literature.

Language editing is not a formal component of peer review; however, reviewers may suggest improvements to clarity or presentation when relevant.

Editorial Decision-Making Process

Reviewers provide written reports and recommendations to support editorial decision-making. Reviewers do not make publication decisions.

The Handling/Associate Editor evaluates all reviewer reports and prepares a recommendation based on the quality, consistency, and substance of the reviews. The final decision to accept, request revision, or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, or by a delegated senior editor acting under the Editor-in-Chief’s authority and oversight.

The editorial board contributes to the journal’s strategic direction and policy development but does not collectively vote on individual manuscript decisions.

Decision Categories

Editorial decisions fall into one of the following categories:

• Reject

• Major Revision

• Minor Revision

• Accept

Contradictory Reviews and Exceptional Situations

If reviewer reports substantially contradict one another, or if a reviewer report is delayed, the editor may invite an additional external reviewer or seek an independent editorial assessment from another qualified editor before making a recommendation.

IJEM’s standard policy is to base editorial decisions on at least two external reviewer reports. In exceptional circumstances, where repeated attempts to secure a second review are unsuccessful, the Editor-in-Chief may proceed with a decision only if:

• at least one high-quality external reviewer report has been obtained,

• an additional independent editorial assessment is documented, and

• acceptance is not based solely on a single external reviewer report.

The editorial rationale for such decisions is recorded internally to ensure transparency and accountability.

How Long Does the Review Process Take?

The length of the peer review process may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript. However, IJEM strives to conduct a thorough and timely review process.

Typical timelines are as follows:

• Initial editorial screening: up to 2–3 weeks

• External peer review: approximately 8–12 weeks

• First editorial decision: typically within 3 months of submission

If delays occur, authors are informed promptly.

Revision timelines depend on the extent of required changes:

• Minor revisions: approximately 7–14 days

• Major revisions: approximately 21–45 days

Extensions may be granted upon reasonable request.

Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation or assessed editorially, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Reviewers may request additional revisions if necessary.

Communication with Authors

Editorial decisions are communicated to the corresponding author along with anonymized reviewer comments. Reviewer comments may be shared verbatim after removal of identifying information or inappropriate language.

Complaints and Appeals Policy

IJEM aims to respond to and resolve all complaints in a fair, transparent, and constructive manner.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision have the right to appeal. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief and should clearly state the grounds for appeal.

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript, editorial history, and reviewer reports. Where appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief will consult another senior editor, assign a new handling editor, and/or seek additional independent peer review. The decision resulting from an appeal is final.

Complaints Related to Policies, Procedures, or Editorial Conduct

Complaints regarding journal policies, procedures, editorial content, or the actions of editorial staff should be submitted by email to [email protected]. All complaints are acknowledged within three working days.

If resolution requires consultation with third parties, the complainant is informed of the expected timeline and receives periodic updates. If the Editor-in-Chief is unavailable or has a conflict of interest, the complaint is referred to a designated senior or executive editor.

All complaints are handled in accordance with principles of confidentiality, impartiality, and editorial independence.