Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Educational Viewpoints (IJEV) follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Review Process

1. Initial Screening

Submitted manuscripts are evaluated by the editorial team to determine:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Originality and scholarly contribution
  • Compliance with submission guidelines
  • Similarity and plagiarism screening

2. Editorial Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an Associate Editor or handling editor based on subject expertise.

3. Reviewer Evaluation

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent peer reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Research quality and methodological rigor
  • Clarity and organization
  • Significance of findings
  • Ethical compliance
  • Relevance to the field of education

4. Decision Making

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial decision may be:

  • Accept
  • Accept with Minor Revisions
  • Revise and Resubmit (Major Revisions)
  • Reject

Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts before a final decision is made.

Review Timeline

IJEV aims to maintain an efficient and timely review process:

  • Initial editorial decision: approximately 2–4 weeks
  • Final publication decision: approximately 4–8 weeks

Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required.

Acceptance Rate

IJEV maintains a selective acceptance rate of approximately 20–40% to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly work.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to provide evaluations that are:

  • Objective and constructive
  • Academically rigorous
  • Free from personal bias
  • Confidential and ethical

Reviewers should also disclose any conflicts of interest and report any suspected ethical concerns related to the manuscript under review.