PEER REVIEW POLICY

PEER REVIEW POLICY

Peer-review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether the manuscript should be published in their journal.  It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals.

Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards Review  Policy and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Initial manuscript evaluation

The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are assigned to an Associate Editor, who will select two (or more) peer reviewers with expertise in the subject matter.

Studies must be scientifically valid; for research articles this includes a scientifically sound research question, the use of suitable methods and analysis, and following community-agreed standards relevant to the research field. 

These reviews assist the Editorial Boards in making publication decisions, and guide authors in strengthening their professional writing. Reviewers provide objective, insightful and rigorous critiques of submitted manuscripts, enhancing the clinical relevance and scientific quality of articles.

Type of Peer Review

Policy employs double blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process.

Selection of Referees

Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise and our database is constantly being updated. Intarnational Journal of Education and Well-Being attempts to prevent conflicts of interest by not inviting reviewers from the same institution(s) as the authors. However, previous relationships or places of employment may not be apparent. In our invitation to potential reviewers, we ask that they decline to review if they know or can reasonably guess the identity of the author.

Referee reports

Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript: – Is original – Is methodologically sound – Follows appropriate ethical guidelines – Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions – Correctly references previous relevant work.

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript. Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction/revision is not part of the peer-review process.

The ideal review should answer the following questions:

• Who will be interested in reading the article, and why?
  •What are the main claims of the article and how significant are they?
  •Are the claims novel? Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed?
  •Are there other experiments or work that would strengthen the article?
  •Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
  •If the manuscript is unacceptable, is the study sufficiently promising to encourage the authors to resubmit?
  •If the manuscript is unacceptable but promising, what specific work is needed to make it acceptable?

How long does the review process take?

The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. Should the referee’s reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. The Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript.

Final report

There are several possible decisions: to accept or reject the manuscript outright; to request minor or major revisions; and to accept or reject after revision(s). Referees and/or Associate Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript. This decision will be sent to the author in addition to any recommendations made by the referees,

Editor’s Decision is final

Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.