Peer Review Policy
Peer Review Policy
Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the evaluation and decision-making stages to promote objectivity and academic integrity. The full workflow runs from technical check through editorial screening, similarity screening, section editor assignment, external double-blind review (target ≤ 4 weeks), final decision by the Editor-in-Chief, and author revision. Timelines are targets and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the scope of revisions required.
Initial Editorial Screening
All submissions undergo an initial check by the Editor-in-Chief (or a designated editor) within 3 business days to assess:
- Fit with the journal's aims and scope
- Basic scholarly quality and originality
- Compliance with publication ethics and required declarations
- Language adequacy for peer review
- Completeness of submission files and metadata
Submissions may be declined (desk rejection) at this stage if they are out of scope, lack sufficient originality, or raise ethical concerns.
Plagiarism & Similarity Screening
PedPer screens all manuscripts using iThenticate prior to peer review. Similarity reports are evaluated by the editorial office considering disciplinary norms and excluding references and properly quoted material where applicable.
Guideline threshold: If the overall similarity index exceeds 20% (excluding references and direct quotations), the manuscript is subject to further editorial assessment and may be rejected where the overlap is judged unacceptable. Manuscripts showing evidence of plagiarism, redundant publication, or unacceptable overlap may be rejected or returned to authors for clarification.
Assignment to Section Editor
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening and similarity check are assigned to a Section Editor who manages the external peer review process and ensures confidentiality and ethical compliance throughout the evaluation.
External Double-Blind Peer Review
Eligible manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are selected based on:
- Relevant expertise, publication record, and academic standing in the field
- Independence from the authors (institutional, financial, personal, and academic)
- Absence of conflicts of interest
Reviewers are asked to evaluate each manuscript against the following criteria:
| Evaluation Criterion | Reviewer Guiding Question |
|---|---|
| Originality & Significance | Does the manuscript present new findings, perspectives, or approaches that make a meaningful contribution to the field? |
| Methodological Rigor | Is the research design appropriate, clearly described, and systematically executed? Are the methods reproducible? |
| Theoretical & Conceptual Framework | Is the study grounded in relevant theory and existing literature? |
| Quality & Clarity of Writing | Is the manuscript well-organised, clearly written, and free of significant language errors? |
| Literature Review | Is the literature review comprehensive, current, and critically integrated? |
| Data Analysis & Interpretation | Are the analytical methods sound and the findings accurately interpreted? |
| Ethical Compliance | Does the study demonstrate appropriate ethics approvals, informed consent, and data handling? |
| Implications for Practice | Does the manuscript offer clear and actionable implications for educational practice, consistent with PedPer's mission? |
| Relevance to Journal Scope | Does the manuscript align with PedPer's aims and scope? |
Reviewers provide structured feedback using the journal's review form and recommend one of the following outcomes:
Reviewers may also provide confidential comments to editors that are not shared with authors.
Editorial Decision
Based on reviewer reports, the Section Editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision. Authors receive the decision along with anonymised reviewer reports.
When the two reviewers provide significantly divergent recommendations (e.g., one recommends acceptance while the other recommends rejection), the Editor-in-Chief may:
- Invite a third independent reviewer to provide an additional assessment, ensuring a fair and balanced decision.
- Make a decision based on the existing reports if the editor has sufficient subject expertise and the points of divergence can be resolved editorially.
In all cases, the rationale for the editorial decision is communicated to the authors transparently.
Revisions
For Minor Revision and Major Revision decisions, authors are expected to submit:
- A revised manuscript clearly indicating all changes (e.g., tracked changes or highlighted text), and
- A detailed point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment.
- Minor revision: Generally assessed by the handling editor without re-sending to external reviewers, unless the editor deems it necessary.
- Major revision: Typically re-sent to the original reviewers (or substitute reviewers if unavailable) for a second evaluation.
- Maximum rounds: A maximum of two revision rounds is generally permitted. If the manuscript cannot meet publication standards after two rounds, it will be rejected.
Reviewer Responsibilities & Ethics
Reviewers invited by PedPer are expected to:
- Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback within the agreed timeframe.
- Evaluate manuscripts solely on their scholarly merit, without bias related to the authors' gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, institutional affiliation, or political views.
- Declare any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if they cannot provide an unbiased review.
- Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the review process.
- Not use ideas, data, or arguments from the manuscript under review for their own benefit.
- Alert the editor to any suspected ethical violations, plagiarism, or data fabrication / falsification.
PedPer's reviewer guidelines and ethical expectations are aligned with COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers are encouraged to consult COPE's resources at publicationethics.org for guidance on ethical review practices.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts, reviewer identities, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and related communications are strictly confidential throughout the review process.
Editors must
- Not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to anyone outside the editorial process.
- Ensure reviewer anonymity is preserved throughout.
- Not use unpublished material in their own research without explicit written consent of the author.
Reviewers must
- Treat the manuscript and all associated information as confidential.
- Not share the manuscript with colleagues without explicit editor permission.
- Delete or return the manuscript after completing the review.
Peer Review for Thematic (Special) Issues
All manuscripts submitted to thematic (special) issues of PedPer undergo the same double-blind peer review process as regular submissions. There is no reduction or modification of review standards for thematic issues. Guest editors coordinate the issue but do not make final acceptance decisions; the Editor-in-Chief retains ultimate editorial authority and decision-making responsibility for all thematic issue content. For further details, see the Thematic Issue Policy.
Appeals & Complaints
PedPer follows recognised publication-ethics guidance (e.g., COPE principles) when handling appeals and complaints.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned letter with supporting evidence to [email protected]. Appeals must clearly explain why the author believes the decision was incorrect and provide a detailed, point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.
Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. Where warranted, an independent reviewer not involved in the original evaluation may be invited to reassess the manuscript. Editors aim to respond to appeals within two months. Appeals may result in:
- Confirmation of the original decision
- A request for revision based on new or additional review
- Reassignment for additional independent review
Final decisions on appeals rest with the Editor-in-Chief and are considered conclusive.
Complaints regarding editorial conduct, review quality, or other concerns should be directed to [email protected]. All complaints are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines. For further details, see the Complaints & Appeals Policy.
Withdrawal Policy
Authors are encouraged to avoid withdrawal once peer review has begun. Withdrawal requests after review has started are considered only in exceptional circumstances, which may include:
- Discovery of a serious methodological error or data integrity issue that invalidates the findings
- Identification of an ethical concern (e.g., lack of appropriate ethics approval) after submission
- Discovery of simultaneous submission to another journal (double submission)
- Significant personal or professional circumstances preventing the authors from completing the review process
Process Timeline Summary
Timelines are targets and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and scope of revisions required.
-
Initial Editorial Screening ≤ 3 business days
All submissions undergo an initial check by the Editor-in-Chief to assess scope, quality, ethics compliance, language adequacy, and metadata completeness. Desk rejection is possible at this stage.
-
Plagiarism & Similarity Screening Concurrent
iThenticate screening is applied during the initial review stage. Manuscripts exceeding the 20% threshold are subject to further editorial assessment.
-
Reviewer Invitation & Acceptance ≤ 5–10 business days
The Section Editor invites at least two independent reviewers. Invitees have 5 business days to respond; all acceptances are secured within 10 business days of assignment.
-
External Peer Review ≤ 4 weeks
At least two independent double-blind reviewers evaluate the manuscript against nine criteria and return a structured recommendation with supporting feedback.
-
Editorial Decision ≤ 1 week after reviews
The Section Editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who issues the final decision. Authors receive the decision with anonymised reviewer reports.
-
Author Revision 15 days (extendable)
Authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response letter. Extensions are available upon request before the deadline.
-
Re-review (Major Revision) ≤ 3 weeks
Manuscripts requiring major revision are re-sent to original reviewers (or substitutes if unavailable). A maximum of two revision rounds is permitted.
-
Appeal Response ≤ 2 months
Authors may appeal decisions with a reasoned letter. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, potentially with an additional independent reviewer.
Total target processing time (submission to first decision): approximately 8–12 weeks.
Transparency and Further Information
For full transparency, PedPer maintains publicly documented policies on all aspects of the editorial and publication process:
