Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Innovation in Education, Technology, and Sustainability (JIETS) applies a rigorous, fair, transparent, and confidential peer review process to ensure the scientific quality and integrity of published research.

All research articles are evaluated through a double-anonymous peer review system involving at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

1. Peer Review Model

JIETS adopts a double-anonymous peer review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.

Authors must prepare anonymized manuscripts by removing names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgments, and other information that may directly reveal their identities.

Complete author information is submitted separately through the journal's online submission system.

Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality and exercise independent academic judgment.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript undergoes preliminary editorial screening.

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope
  • Originality and scientific contribution
  • Methodological appropriateness
  • Clarity of presentation and academic English
  • Compliance with manuscript preparation requirements
  • Ethical considerations and potential research integrity concerns

Manuscripts that do not satisfy the journal's minimum standards may be rejected without external peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

Reviewers are selected according to their academic qualifications, research experience, expertise, independence, and availability.

Reviewers with relevant conflicts of interest must decline the invitation or disclose the conflict before accepting the assignment.

The journal may invite additional reviewers when specialist expertise is required or when reviewer assessments substantially differ.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to:

  • Originality and novelty: Does the manuscript provide a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge?
  • Relevance and significance: Is the research consistent with the journal's scope and important to its intended readership?
  • Theoretical contribution: Are the research questions, concepts, and theoretical arguments adequately developed?
  • Methodological rigor: Are the research design, procedures, instruments, analytical techniques, and interpretations appropriate?
  • Results and evidence: Are the findings presented transparently and supported by reliable evidence?
  • Discussion and implications: Are conclusions justified, limitations acknowledged, and implications adequately articulated?
  • Presentation quality: Is the manuscript clearly structured, appropriately referenced, and written in academic English?
  • Ethical compliance: Does the study meet relevant standards of research and publication ethics?

5. Review Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Reviewers provide reasoned comments to support their recommendations.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately delegated handling editor.

A positive reviewer recommendation does not guarantee acceptance.

6. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response addressing reviewer and editor comments.

Authors should clearly identify substantive changes and provide academic justification when they disagree with a recommendation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers when necessary.

Multiple revision rounds may be required.

7. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor makes the final editorial decision based on the scientific merit of the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, ethical considerations, and journal standards.

When reviewer recommendations conflict, the editor may seek an additional evaluation or make a reasoned decision based on the available evidence.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period.

8. Confidentiality and Reviewer Ethics

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished research findings are confidential.

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content or use privileged information for personal research or other purposes.

Reviewers must not delegate their evaluation to another person or to generative AI systems without explicit editorial authorization.

Any use of authorized assistance must preserve confidentiality, independence, and accountability.

9. Special Issues and Editorial Submissions

Manuscripts submitted to special issues are subject to the same editorial standards and independent peer review requirements as regular submissions.

When editors, editorial board members, or guest editors submit their own manuscripts, they must be excluded from handling the editorial evaluation of those submissions.

An independent editor must oversee the process.

10. Appeals and Ethical Concerns

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a written explanation supported by relevant evidence.

Appeals are reviewed independently where practicable, and decisions are based on the scientific and procedural merits of the case.

Suspected misconduct during peer review will be investigated under the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

11. Editorial Workflow

The journal's standard editorial process follows this sequence:

Submission → Initial Screening → Reviewer Assignment → Independent Peer Review → Editorial Decision → Revision (if required) → Final Decision → Copyediting and Production → Publication

All manuscripts are evaluated according to scholarly merit, editorial independence, and research integrity.