Peer Review & Complaints Policy
Peer Review Policy: All content of IJEM is subject to peer review. All articles published in IJEM have undergone rigorous peer review (double-blind peer review) by the help of the external reviewers and the editorial board. The IJEM Editor first checks and evaluates the submitted manuscripts, examining their fit and quality regarding their significance, manuscript format, and research quality. If it is suitable for potential IJEM publication, the editor directs the manuscript to two external reviewers, both of whom are experts in the field. After both reviewers' feedback, the editorial board decides if the manuscript will be rejected, accepted with revisions needed, or accepted for publication. A diagram that illustrates the review and publishing process can be seen below.
Reviewers are objective for all judgments in the peer review process. Reviewers are assigned in order to have no conflict of interest. Reviewers might point out relevant published work that has not yet been cited. Submitted manuscripts are treated confidentially prior to their publication.
Peer reviewed feedback and results will be sent to the corresponding author for corrections (if necessary). Edits will be made available to corresponding authors before publishing. Edited/Revised papers should be returned to the publisher within three days.
The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. All manuscripts submitted to IJEM are peer reviewed, following the procedure outlined below.
Initial manuscript evaluation: The Editors first evaluate all manuscripts. It is rare but possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside of the aims and scope of the journal. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2-3 weeks of receipt.
Type of peer review: This journal employs double-blind review, where the author and referee remain anonymous throughout the process.
How reviewers are selected: All primary research manuscripts submitted to our journal are subject to external peer review. External peer review is an integral part of ensuring that published articles undergo a careful and transparent examination of the theoretical backgrounds and models used, as well as an objective evaluation of the scientific design and the overall coherence of the paper. The editorial board has established a database of potential external reviewers who are experts in various fields. This database is continually updated. To maximize the contributions from external reviewers, the editor-in-chief reviews the submitted manuscript and selects the most appropriate expert from the database. The editor-in-chief also ensures that there is no conflict of interest between the author of the manuscript and the external reviewer.
Reviewer reports: Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
– Is original
– Makes a theoretical contribution to the study of educational sciences
– Is methodologically sound
– Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
– Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
– Correctly cites previous relevant work
Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but reviewers may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.
How long does the review process take? The time required for the review process is dependent on the reviewers' response. However, the typical time for IJEM is approximately three months. Should the reviewers' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second reviewer to review the manuscript, or when the one reviewer's report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject, or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one reviewer's report. The Editor's decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the reviewers, which usually includes verbatim comments by the reviewers . Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial reviewers, who may then request another revision of a manuscript.
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers .
The editor's decision is final. Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision on whether to accept or reject the article.
Becoming a reviewer for IJEM: If you are not currently a reviewer of IJEM but would like to be considered as a reviewer, please get in touch with the editorial office at editor@ijem.com. The benefits of refereeing for IJEM include the opportunity to read, see, and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of academic research and its published documentation. You may also be able to cite your work for IJEM as part of your professional development requirements for various professional societies and organizations.
Complaints Policy
We aim to respond to and resolve all complaints quickly and constructively. The procedures to investigate and resolve complaints followed by IJEM aim to be fair and balanced for those making complaints and for those being complained about.
For Appeal against editorial decisions: If the authors disagree with the editorial decision on their manuscripts, they have a right to appeal.
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should contact the Editor-in-Chief of IJEM. In such cases, the editor-in-chief will review the manuscript, editorial, and peer reviewers' comments and give his/her decision to accept or reject a manuscript. Editor-in-Chief may, if so required, send the manuscript to a new handling editor for a fresh editorial review and to new reviewers for peer review. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief in such cases will be final.
Complaints related to policies, procedures, editorial content, and actions of the editorial staff:
The procedure to make a complaint is easy. The complaint can be made by writing an email. Ideally, the complaint should be made to the person with whom the complainant is in regular contact for the matter being complained about. If due to any reason it is not appropriate or possible to complain to the contact person, please email to: editor@ijem.com to send complaints.
All complaints will be acknowledged within three working days.
The editor-in-chief's decision on all matters related to the policies, procedures, editorial content, and actions of the editorial staff will be final. If the Editor-in-Chief is unavailable for any reason, the complaint will be referred to the Executive Editor of IJEM.
Complaint Resolution: All efforts will be made to resolve the complaint as quickly as possible. In some cases, a delay in resolution may occur if a response from a third person or organization is required. Until the complaint is resolved, a complaint resolution update will be provided to the complainant every two weeks until the complaint is finally resolved.