Peer Review Process

 

The Journal of Education for the Humanities applies a peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly value of submitted manuscripts. Peer review is an essential part of the journal’s editorial decision-making process and helps maintain the academic standards and integrity of the published scholarly record.

The journal is committed to a fair, objective, confidential, and transparent review process. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, reviewers’ reports, ethical compliance, and the journal’s editorial standards.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first checked by the editorial office to ensure that they comply with the journal’s aims and scope, author guidelines, formatting requirements, ethical standards, plagiarism and similarity policy, and basic submission requirements.

At this stage, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for correction if it does not follow the journal template or author guidelines. Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, incomplete, poorly prepared, or clearly inconsistent with the journal’s ethical and editorial standards may be rejected before peer review.

2. Plagiarism and Similarity Check

Before being sent to peer review, submitted manuscripts may be checked using plagiarism and similarity detection software, such as Turnitin, CrossCheck, or iThenticate, according to the journal’s plagiarism and similarity policy.

Manuscripts that exceed the journal’s accepted similarity limit of 20% may be rejected or returned to the authors for correction, depending on the nature and seriousness of the similarity. The similarity percentage alone is not the only criterion for judgment; the editorial team also considers the sources of similarity, proper citation, and whether the overlap affects the originality and integrity of the manuscript.

3. Type of Peer Review

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process whenever possible. This means that the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, specialization, and relevance to the manuscript’s subject area. The journal usually sends the manuscript to at least two qualified reviewers.

4. Reviewer Invitation and Acceptance

Reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts according to their area of expertise. Before accepting the review invitation, reviewers should consider the manuscript’s title, abstract, subject area, their ability to complete the review within the required time, and whether there is any potential conflict of interest.

Reviewers who feel unqualified to review the manuscript, cannot complete the review on time, or have a conflict of interest must inform the editorial office and decline the review invitation.

5. Review Procedure

After passing the initial editorial screening, the manuscript is sent to qualified reviewers. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to its originality, scientific significance, relevance to the journal’s scope, methodology, clarity, literature review, analysis, results, discussion, references, language quality, and contribution to the field.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and academically justified comments. Their comments should help the authors improve the manuscript and assist the editorial team in making an appropriate decision.

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

1. Accept the manuscript.
2. Accept after minor revisions.
3. Reconsider after major revisions.
4. Reject the manuscript.

The reviewers’ recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the editorial team based on the reviewers’ reports, the quality of the manuscript, the authors’ responses, ethical considerations, and the journal’s editorial standards.

6. Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, discuss, distribute, or use the manuscript or any part of it for personal, academic, or professional advantage before publication.

Editors, editorial board members, and all individuals involved in the editorial process must also maintain confidentiality throughout the review and publication process.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflict of interest that may affect, or appear to affect, their impartiality. Conflicts of interest may be personal, academic, financial, institutional, or professional.

If a conflict of interest exists, the manuscript should be assigned to another qualified reviewer or editor. The journal is committed to managing conflicts of interest fairly and transparently.

8. Revision and Author Response

Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts according to reviewers’ comments. When submitting a revised manuscript, authors should provide a clear response explaining how each comment has been addressed. Revised parts of the manuscript should be clearly marked or highlighted when required by the journal.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the same reviewers, sent to additional reviewers, or evaluated by the editorial team. Acceptance of a revised manuscript is not guaranteed and depends on the quality of the revised version and the authors’ response to the reviewers’ comments.

9. Handling Divergent Reviewer Reports

If the reviewers’ reports differ significantly, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor may make a decision based on the strength of the reports and the manuscript’s quality, request further revision, or send the manuscript to an additional reviewer before making a final decision.

10. Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision may be one of the following:

1. Accept.
2. Minor revision.
3. Major revision.
4. Reject.

The decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the journal system or by email. Reviewer comments are provided to the author while maintaining reviewer confidentiality.

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor has the authority to make the final decision based on the peer review reports, editorial evaluation, ethical compliance, and the journal’s publication standards.

11. Integrity of Peer Review

Any attempt to manipulate the peer review process is considered a serious ethical violation. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of false reviewer identities, inappropriate reviewer suggestions, undisclosed conflicts of interest, coercive citation practices, interference with reviewer independence, or attempts to influence the review outcome in an improper manner.

If peer review manipulation is suspected, the journal may conduct an editorial investigation and take appropriate action, including rejection of the manuscript, withdrawal of acceptance, correction, retraction, or notification of the relevant institution when necessary.

12. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts fairly, objectively, and respectfully. They should not make personal criticism of authors. Comments should focus on the scholarly content, methodology, clarity, originality, and contribution of the manuscript.

Reviewers should alert the editor to any suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, ethical concern, or substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and any published or submitted work known to them.

13. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by commercial interests, institutional pressure, personal relationships, political considerations, or the payment of publication fees. Publication fees, where applicable, do not affect editorial decisions or peer review outcomes.