- Review model
- Double anonymous
- Time to review
- 4 weeks
- Acceptance rate
- 88%
- Submission to publication
- 42 days (median)
Every research article submitted to Journal of Education and Teaching Learning is first checked by the editor for scope, originality, similarity and compliance with the author guidelines. Manuscripts that pass this check are sent to independent experts for peer review.
- Reviewers are chosen for their expertise and must have no conflict of interest with the authors.
- Reviewers assess originality, methods, results, interpretation, references and clarity, and recommend accept, minor revision, major revision or decline.
- The editor makes the final decision based on the reviews and may seek further opinions when reviews disagree.
- Authors receive the reviewers' comments and respond point by point when revising.
- Reviewers' identities and comments are kept confidential according to the journal's review model.
As set in the journal
Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication. It assists editors in making editorial decisions and helps authors improve their manuscripts. The journal shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
TimelinessIf reviewers should feel unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or affirm that they cannot meet the deadline for completion of the review, they should immediately notify the editor and excuse themselves from the process of reviewing this manuscript so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
ConfidentialityReviewers should treat the manuscript in a confidential manner. The manuscript should not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
ObjectivityReviewers should approach the peer-review job objectively. Their observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that the authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sourcesReviewers should notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript either published or under consideration by another journal. Reviewers should also identify any relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Conflicts of interest and disclosureReviewers should inform the editor and recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript if there is a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Reviewers should not use any part of any data or work reported in submitted or yet unpublished articles in their own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
