Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose

The Journal of Education and Development Lab (JEDL) is committed to a fair, rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer-review process that helps ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of published scholarly work.

Peer review is an essential part of JEDL's editorial process. It assists editors in making informed publication decisions and provides authors with constructive scholarly feedback that may improve their manuscripts.

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, and other individuals involved in the peer-review process.

2. Peer Review Model

JEDL uses a double-anonymous peer-review process as its standard review model.

Under the double-anonymous model:

The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers;
The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors;
Reviewers are expected not to attempt to identify the authors;
Authors are expected not to attempt to identify reviewers;
Editorial staff will take reasonable measures to preserve anonymity during the review process.

However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed because reviewers or authors may be able to infer identities from manuscript content, citations, research topics, institutional information, preprints, or other publicly available information.

Where anonymity is compromised unintentionally, the editorial team will determine the appropriate course of action.

3. Objectives of Peer Review

The peer-review process aims to evaluate:

Originality and contribution to knowledge;
Relevance to JEDL's Aims & Scope;
Clarity of research objectives or questions;
Theoretical or conceptual foundation;
Appropriateness of methodology;
Quality and validity of analysis;
Accuracy and interpretation of results;
Quality of discussion and conclusions;
Appropriate use of references;
Ethical compliance;
Academic writing and presentation;
Overall scholarly significance.

Peer review is intended to improve scholarly quality rather than merely identify errors.

4. Editorial Screening Before Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to JEDL undergo an initial editorial assessment before peer review.

The editorial team may assess:

Whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope;
Whether the submission follows the author guidelines;
Whether the manuscript meets basic academic and structural requirements;
Whether ethical requirements appear to have been satisfied;
Whether plagiarism or problematic text overlap is suspected;
Whether the manuscript appears sufficiently original and scholarly;
Whether the manuscript is complete and suitable for external review.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it is clearly unsuitable for JEDL or does not meet the journal's minimum requirements.

Such an editorial screening decision does not necessarily indicate that the research is invalid.

5. Selection of Reviewers

JEDL seeks to appoint reviewers who possess appropriate expertise in the subject, methodology, or theoretical area of the manuscript.

Reviewers may be selected based on:

Relevant academic expertise;
Research experience;
Methodological expertise;
Publication record;
Subject specialization;
Previous reviewing experience;
Availability;
Absence of significant conflicts of interest.

The number of reviewers may vary according to the manuscript and its subject area.

JEDL will normally seek at least two independent reviewers for research articles requiring external peer review.

Additional reviewers may be invited when:

Reviewer reports substantially disagree;
Specialized expertise is required;
Ethical or methodological concerns arise;
A reviewer withdraws;
The editor determines that additional independent assessment is necessary.

6. Reviewer Independence

Reviewers must provide independent and objective assessments.

Reviewers should decline an invitation if they:

Have a significant personal relationship with the authors;
Have recently collaborated with an author;
Work in direct competition with the authors in a way that creates a significant conflict;
Have a financial or professional interest in the outcome;
Have another circumstance that could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Reviewers should inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest before accepting the review.

7. Reviewer Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals;
Distribute manuscript files;
Discuss unpublished findings publicly;
Use unpublished information for personal research or advantage;
Copy substantial portions of a manuscript for personal use;
Upload confidential manuscript content to unauthorized third-party services.

Reviewers must also maintain the confidentiality of their review reports and editorial communications.

8. Reviewer Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must exercise particular caution when using artificial intelligence or generative AI tools during peer review.

A reviewer should not upload an unpublished manuscript, confidential manuscript content, reviewer report, or other confidential editorial material to an external AI system unless JEDL has explicitly authorized such use and appropriate confidentiality protections are in place.

AI tools must not replace the reviewer's independent academic judgment.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of their review.

9. Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally asked to consider the following areas.

A. Originality

Does the manuscript make an original contribution?
Does it provide new findings, interpretations, methods, evidence, or perspectives?

B. Relevance

Is the manuscript relevant to JEDL's Aims & Scope?
Is the research question academically significant?

C. Methodology

Is the methodology appropriate?
Are the methods sufficiently described?
Are the research design and procedures appropriate?
Are the analyses suitable for the research questions?

D. Results and Analysis

Are the findings clearly presented?
Does the evidence support the results?
Are interpretations justified?

E. Discussion and Conclusion

Does the discussion relate appropriately to the research findings?
Are limitations acknowledged?
Does the evidence support conclusions?
Is the contribution to the field clearly explained?

F. References

Are relevant and appropriate sources cited?
Are citations accurate and sufficiently comprehensive?
Is there evidence of inappropriate citation practices?

G. Presentation

Is the manuscript logically organized?
Is the academic language sufficiently clear?
Are tables, figures, and supplementary materials appropriately presented?

H. Research Ethics

Does the research meet applicable ethical requirements?
Where relevant, is ethical approval reported?
Where human participants are involved, are appropriate consent and privacy considerations addressed?

10. Reviewer Reports

Reviewers should provide reports that are:

Constructive;
Specific;
Evidence-based;
Respectful;
Academically relevant;
Clear and understandable.

Reviewers should distinguish between:

Major concerns affecting the validity or contribution of the work;
Minor issues that can reasonably be corrected;
Optional suggestions for improvement.

Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

11. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

Accept;
Minor Revision;
Major Revision;
Reject.

The reviewer recommendation is advisory.

The final editorial decision is the responsibility of the editor and is based on the complete evaluation of the manuscript.

12. Editorial Decisions

After considering the manuscript and reviewer reports, the responsible editor may make one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive revisions required, subject to final editorial or production checks.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited corrections or improvements.

Major Revision

The manuscript may have publication potential but requires substantial revision, clarification, additional analysis, methodological explanation, or other significant improvements.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in JEDL, or the concerns identified are sufficiently substantial that publication cannot be recommended.

13. Reviewer Disagreement

Reviewers may reasonably reach different conclusions.

Where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict, the editor may:

Examine the reports and make an editorial decision;
Request clarification from a reviewer;
Invite an additional independent reviewer;
Seek a specialized methodological or subject-area assessment.

A manuscript will not automatically be rejected solely because one reviewer recommends rejection.

Likewise, a manuscript will not automatically be accepted solely because one reviewer recommends acceptance.

14. Revision and Resubmission

When revision is requested, authors should submit:

A revised version of the manuscript; and
A response to the reviewers explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Authors should clearly identify changes made to the manuscript where appropriate.

If an author disagrees with a reviewer, the author may provide a reasoned academic response rather than making a change that is not scientifically justified.

15. Review of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be:

Evaluated by the original reviewers;
Sent to new reviewers;
Evaluated solely by the editor when the revisions are minor.

The decision will depend on the nature and extent of the requested revisions.

Where substantial revisions are required, JEDL may conduct another round of peer review.

16. Reviewer Timelines

JEDL aims to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining appropriate scholarly rigor.

Reviewers are expected to:

Respond promptly to invitations;
Accept review assignments only when they can complete them appropriately;
Inform the editor as soon as possible if they cannot meet the requested deadline;
Submit their review within the agreed timeframe.

JEDL may send reminders or appoint replacement reviewers when necessary.

Because reviewer availability varies by discipline and time of year, exact review timelines cannot always be guaranteed.

17. Reviewer Recognition

Where appropriate and where confidentiality permits, JEDL may recognize reviewers for their scholarly service.

Such recognition may include:

Certificates;
Reviewer acknowledgements;
Editorial recognition;
Participation records.

Reviewer identities will not be publicly disclosed where the journal's double-anonymous review policy requires confidentiality.

18. Reviewer Misconduct

JEDL considers the following inappropriate:

Breach of manuscript confidentiality;
Misuse of unpublished information;
Discriminatory or abusive comments;
Deliberate delay of a manuscript;
Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
Coercive citation requests;
Manipulation of the review process;
Providing a review without appropriate expertise;
Use of confidential manuscript content for personal advantage;
Attempting to influence authors for personal or professional benefit.

Concerns regarding reviewer misconduct may be investigated by the editorial team.

19. Coercive Citation

Reviewers must not require authors to cite the reviewer's own publications, publications of colleagues, or other sources unless there is a genuine scholarly reason directly relevant to improving the manuscript.

Requests for citations must never be made to increase citation counts or manipulate journal metrics.

20. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Independence

Reviewers provide expert advice but do not make the final publication decision.

Editors retain responsibility for:

Evaluating reviewer reports;
Considering the manuscript as a whole;
Resolving disagreements;
Assessing ethical concerns;
Making the final editorial decision.

Editorial decisions must remain independent of personal, political, financial, institutional, or commercial considerations.

21. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe there has been:

A significant factual error;
A serious procedural error;
A demonstrable conflict of interest;
A substantial misunderstanding of the manuscript;
Evidence that relevant information was not properly considered.

An appeal should provide a clear academic or procedural justification.

Simply disagreeing with the reviewers' opinions does not by itself constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Further procedures are provided in the JEDL Appeals Policy.

22. Conflicts of Interest

All participants in peer review must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Editors may reassign a manuscript when a significant conflict exists.

Authors may be asked to disclose:

Financial interests;
Professional relationships;
Institutional affiliations;
Funding relationships;
Other circumstances that could affect the interpretation of the research.

Reviewers must decline assignments where a conflict could compromise impartiality.

23. Ethical Concerns During Peer Review

If a reviewer identifies a possible ethical concern, the reviewer should inform the editor confidentially rather than contacting the authors directly about allegations of misconduct.

Possible concerns include:

Plagiarism;
Fabricated or falsified data;
Duplicate publication;
Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
Unethical research involving human participants;
Manipulated images;
Suspicious authorship;
Peer-review manipulation;
Citation manipulation.

The editor will determine the appropriate course of action.

24. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Editors and Editorial Board members may submit manuscripts to JEDL.

Their submissions must undergo the same academic standards as other manuscripts.

An editor must not make editorial decisions concerning their own manuscript.

Where appropriate, the manuscript will be assigned to an independent editor who is not involved in the research.

25. Special Issues

Manuscripts submitted to special issues are subject to the same standards of peer review and publication ethics as regular submissions.

Guest editors must not bypass the journal's standard peer-review procedures.

Where a guest editor has a conflict of interest with a submission, an independent editor should oversee the manuscript.

26. Desk Rejection and Peer Review

Not every submission will necessarily be sent for external peer review.

JEDL may decline to send a manuscript to reviewers when:

It is outside the journal's scope;
It does not meet minimum scholarly standards;
The submission is incomplete;
Ethical or integrity concerns require clarification;
The manuscript is clearly unsuitable for publication;
The manuscript does not comply with essential submission requirements.

Editors make desk decisions and are distinct from external peer-review decisions.

27. Transparency of the Peer-Review Process

JEDL provides authors with information about its peer-review model and editorial procedures.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance based on favorable reviewer comments.

Peer review is intended to support the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing while recognizing that reviewers and editors may exercise legitimate academic judgment.

28. Exceptions to the Standard Peer-Review Process

Certain content may be subject to different editorial procedures, including:

Editorials;
Letters;
Book reviews;
Corrections;
Retractions;
Expressions of Concern;
Announcements;
Invited contributions.

Where an article type does not undergo standard external peer review, JEDL will make the applicable process clear where appropriate.

29. Post-Publication Review

Peer review does not end the journal's responsibility for the scholarly record.

After publication, JEDL may consider credible concerns regarding:

Data integrity;
Research ethics;
Plagiarism;
Authorship;
Conflicts of interest;
Methodological errors;
Other issues affecting the reliability of published work.

Where necessary, JEDL may publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction in accordance with its post-publication policies.

30. Commitment to Fairness and Integrity

JEDL is committed to ensuring that peer review is:

Fair • Independent • Confidential • Constructive • Rigorous • Ethical • Transparent

The journal aims to provide authors with a meaningful scholarly assessment while protecting reviewers from inappropriate influence and maintaining the integrity of the academic record.