Peer Review Policy

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education (IEJEE) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, confidential, and academically independent peer-review process. Peer review is an essential component of scholarly publishing and contributes to the quality, credibility, originality, and integrity of research published in the Journal.

All research manuscripts submitted to IEJEE are subject to editorial assessment and, when considered suitable for further evaluation, undergo double-blind peer review.

1. Double-Blind Peer Review

IEJEE applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which:

  • The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers.

  • The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

  • Authors and reviewers should not attempt to identify or directly contact one another during the review process.

  • Editors take reasonable measures to protect the anonymity and confidentiality of both parties.

Authors are therefore required to submit an appropriately anonymized manuscript. Names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, and other information that could directly identify the authors should be removed from the manuscript used for peer review.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team before being sent for external peer review.

During this stage, manuscripts may be evaluated for:

  • Relevance to the Journal's aims and scope

  • Originality and scholarly contribution

  • Overall academic and methodological quality

  • Compliance with submission and formatting requirements

  • Quality and clarity of academic English

  • Research and publication ethics

  • Plagiarism, similarity, or substantial textual overlap

  • Appropriate research design and methodology

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it falls outside the Journal's scope, lacks sufficient originality or scholarly quality, contains serious methodological problems, does not meet ethical or editorial requirements, or is otherwise considered unsuitable for publication.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts proceeding to peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of factors such as:

  • Subject and methodological expertise

  • Academic qualifications and research experience

  • Publication record in the relevant field

  • Independence from the authors

  • Absence of significant conflicts of interest

  • Quality and timeliness of previous reviews, where applicable

The editors are responsible for selecting reviewers and determining whether potential conflicts of interest may affect the independence of the review.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers or identify individuals whom they prefer not to review their manuscript. However, the final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the editors.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, professionally, and confidentially.

Reviewers should:

  • Accept a review assignment only when they possess appropriate expertise.

  • Provide an objective and evidence-based assessment.

  • Evaluate the originality, significance, methodology, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

  • Provide constructive comments that can assist authors in improving their work.

  • Avoid personal, discriminatory, defamatory, or inappropriate comments.

  • Declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and review process.

  • Not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, commercial, or competitive advantage.

  • Inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, ethical violations, or other forms of research or publication misconduct.

  • Complete the review within the requested timeframe whenever possible.

  • Recommend citations only when they are academically relevant and necessary.

Reviewers must not request authors to cite their own publications, or those of colleagues, merely to increase citation counts.

5. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to IEJEE are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose information concerning a submitted manuscript to unauthorized individuals. Manuscripts, data, figures, findings, ideas, and other unpublished information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal benefit or incorporated into another person's research without appropriate authorization.

The confidentiality obligation continues after the review process has been completed.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or circumstance that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may arise from:

  • Recent research collaboration with an author

  • Employment at the same institution

  • Personal or family relationships

  • Academic competition or rivalry

  • Financial interests

  • Supervisory or mentoring relationships

  • Commercial relationships

  • Other professional or personal circumstances affecting impartiality

When a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review invitation or immediately inform the editor.

Editors must similarly recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a significant conflict of interest.

7. Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally asked to consider the following aspects of a manuscript:

Originality and Contribution: Does the manuscript provide an original and meaningful contribution to the relevant field?

Relevance: Is the subject appropriate for the aims and scope of IEJEE?

Literature and Theoretical Framework: Is the relevant literature adequately reviewed and is the study appropriately situated within existing scholarship?

Research Questions and Objectives: Are the research problem, questions, hypotheses, or objectives clearly presented?

Methodology: Is the research design appropriate and sufficiently described? Are sampling, instruments, data collection, and analytical procedures suitable?

Results and Analysis: Are the findings clearly and accurately reported and supported by the data?

Discussion and Conclusions: Are the interpretations justified by the findings and appropriately connected to previous research?

Ethical Compliance: Where applicable, does the research demonstrate appropriate ethical approval, informed consent, confidentiality, and protection of participants?

Academic Presentation: Is the manuscript logically organized and written in clear and appropriate academic language?

References: Are relevant sources appropriately acknowledged and accurately cited?

8. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may make recommendations such as:

  • Accept

  • Accept with Minor Revisions

  • Major Revisions Required

  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. They provide expert guidance to the editors but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

9. Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor or designated handling editor.

In reaching a decision, the editor considers:

  • Reviewer reports and recommendations

  • Scientific and methodological quality

  • Originality and significance

  • Authors' responses to reviewer comments

  • Compliance with ethical requirements

  • Relevance to the Journal's aims and scope

  • Overall contribution to the scholarly literature

Editors are not required to follow a reviewer's recommendation when there are reasonable academic or ethical grounds for a different decision.

Where reviewer reports substantially disagree, the editor may invite an additional reviewer or seek further expert advice before making a decision.

10. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should carefully address the comments of the reviewers and editors.

Authors should normally submit:

  1. A revised version of the manuscript; and

  2. A detailed response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.

When authors disagree with a recommendation, they may provide a respectful and academically supported explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated directly by the editor, depending on the extent of the revisions required.

More than one round of revision may be requested when necessary.

11. Review Timeline

IEJEE aims to conduct peer review as efficiently as possible while maintaining scholarly quality.

The Journal normally seeks to obtain evaluations from two reviewers with relevant subject expertise within approximately six weeks. Authors receiving a revision decision are normally expected to respond to reviewer comments and submit their revised manuscript within the period specified by the editorial office.

Review timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the extent of revisions required, and other circumstances.

12. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or individuals closely associated with the Journal are not exempt from the standard peer-review requirements.

Where an editor has a conflict of interest concerning a submitted manuscript, responsibility for managing the manuscript and making editorial decisions will be assigned to another qualified editor who has no relevant conflict.

The submitting editor or editorial board member will have no involvement in reviewer selection or the editorial decision concerning their own manuscript.

13. Research and Publication Ethics During Peer Review

Reviewers and editors are encouraged to identify and report potential ethical concerns, including suspected:

  • Plagiarism

  • Duplicate or redundant publication

  • Data fabrication or falsification

  • Image or figure manipulation

  • Inappropriate authorship

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

  • Citation manipulation

  • Peer-review manipulation

  • Ethical problems involving human participants or animals

  • Other forms of research or publication misconduct

Such concerns will be investigated in accordance with the Journal's Publishing Ethics Policy and applicable principles of publication ethics.

14. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Because submitted manuscripts are confidential documents, reviewers must protect manuscript content when using digital or artificial intelligence tools.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, integrity, objectivity, and scholarly quality of their review reports.

Confidential manuscript content, unpublished data, personal information, or other protected material should not be uploaded to external generative AI systems where doing so could compromise confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or the integrity of the peer-review process.

Any permitted use of AI-assisted tools should comply with the Journal's applicable policies and confidentiality requirements.

15. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may raise a reasoned appeal concerning an editorial decision when they believe that a significant error occurred during the evaluation process.

An appeal should clearly explain the academic or procedural grounds for reconsideration. Disagreement with reviewer comments alone does not necessarily constitute grounds for changing an editorial decision.

Where appropriate, appeals will be evaluated by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

16. Ethical Standards for Peer Review

IEJEE expects editors and reviewers to conduct the peer-review process according to internationally recognized principles of scholarly integrity and publication ethics.

Reviewers are expected to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, particularly with respect to confidentiality, objectivity, conflicts of interest, timeliness, professional conduct, and responsible handling of unpublished scholarly material.

Through its double-blind peer-review system, IEJEE seeks to ensure that publication decisions are based on scholarly merit, methodological quality, originality, relevance, ethical integrity, and contribution to knowledge rather than the identity, affiliation, nationality, gender, or personal characteristics of the authors.