Peer Review Policy
SEARCH: Science Education Research Journal is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, confidential, and transparent peer-review process to ensure the scholarly quality and integrity of published research. All research manuscripts considered for publication are evaluated according to their originality, scientific merit, methodological rigor, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, ethical compliance, and contribution to the development of knowledge in science education and related fields. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly considerations and are independent of authors' institutional affiliations, academic status, nationality, or other personal characteristics.
The journal applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which reviewers do not know the identities of the authors and authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers. This approach is intended to reduce potential bias and support independent, objective assessment. All parties involved in the editorial process are expected to observe confidentiality, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and comply with applicable publication ethics standards.
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor. This screening assesses whether the manuscript falls within the journal's aims and scope, demonstrates an appropriate level of originality and scholarly relevance, follows the journal's author guidelines, and meets the minimum requirements for academic writing, methodological reporting, research ethics, and submission completeness.
Manuscripts may be returned to authors for technical correction before further evaluation if required files, declarations, references, or other submission elements are incomplete. A manuscript may be rejected without external review if it is outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient originality or scholarly contribution, contains fundamental methodological or scientific weaknesses, presents serious ethical concerns, or does not meet the journal's minimum publication requirements. Language or formatting deficiencies may also be grounds for return or rejection when they substantially prevent reliable scholarly evaluation.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are considered for external peer review. The journal normally seeks assessments from at least two qualified reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Passing the initial screening does not imply acceptance or guarantee publication.
Manuscripts that meet the initial editorial requirements are evaluated by independent reviewers selected according to their subject expertise, research experience, and ability to provide a critical and constructive assessment. The journal normally obtains reports from a minimum of two external reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when the reports are conflicting, further expertise is needed, or the Editor-in-Chief considers additional assessment necessary.
Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript objectively and provide reasoned evaluations of its originality, theoretical foundation, research design, methodological appropriateness, data analysis, interpretation of findings, contribution to the field, quality of academic writing, and adherence to ethical standards. Recommendations should be supported by clear explanations and, where appropriate, specific suggestions that enable authors to improve the manuscript.
Reviewers must not use confidential information obtained during peer review for personal, professional, or competitive advantage. They must not disclose the manuscript or review materials to unauthorized individuals. Reviewers should decline an invitation if they lack the relevant expertise, cannot complete the review within the requested period, or have a conflict of interest that could compromise the impartiality of their assessment.
Authors and reviewers are expected to preserve the double-blind nature of the process. Authors should remove identifying information from the anonymized manuscript and its supplementary files where feasible. Reviewers should avoid attempting to identify the authors and should notify the editor if a potential identity disclosure or conflict of interest could materially affect the review.
Reviewers should consult the journal's official reviewer guidance before accepting or conducting a review: Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
The Editor-in-Chief has ultimate responsibility for the final editorial decision on each manuscript. Decisions are informed by the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's scholarly quality, its relevance to the journal, compliance with publication ethics, and the editor's independent academic judgment. Reviewer recommendations are important evidence for editorial assessment but do not automatically determine the final outcome.
The Editor-in-Chief may seek advice from members of the editorial or advisory boards, subject specialists, or additional independent reviewers when further expertise is required. Associate editors and other authorized editorial personnel may coordinate reviewer invitations, monitor review progress, communicate editorial decisions, and support the consistent administration of the review process.
Editors must maintain editorial independence, protect confidential information, and treat authors and reviewers fairly. Any editor who has a personal, professional, financial, collaborative, or other competing interest in a submission must disclose the conflict and withdraw from handling the manuscript where necessary. The submission should then be assigned to an appropriately qualified and independent editor who can manage the review and decision-making process impartially.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers who possess relevant expertise and a demonstrated record of scholarly work in the subject area of the manuscript. Suggested reviewers should have appropriate academic qualifications or professional expertise, relevant publications, and the ability to provide an independent assessment. Authors should provide sufficient information to allow the editorial office to verify each suggested reviewer's identity, affiliation, expertise, and contact details.
When suggesting reviewers, authors should provide an institutional or otherwise verifiable professional email address, the reviewer's current institutional affiliation, and a link to a reliable academic profile or publication record where available. Suggested reviewers should not have a close personal or professional relationship with the authors, a recent or ongoing collaboration that could compromise independence, a shared institutional affiliation that creates a conflict of interest, or another competing interest relevant to the manuscript.
The journal independently determines reviewer suitability and reserves the right to accept or decline any reviewer suggestion. Authors' suggestions do not guarantee that the individuals will be invited, and the journal may select other reviewers based on expertise, availability, independence, and the requirements of the double-blind review process.
Following editorial evaluation of the reviewer reports and the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor may issue one of the following decisions:
The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without further substantive revision, although minor editorial or production corrections may still be required.
The manuscript requires limited changes to improve clarity, reporting, interpretation, presentation, or compliance with the journal's requirements. The revised manuscript may be assessed by the editor and, where necessary, returned to the reviewers.
The manuscript requires substantial improvements, which may involve theoretical framing, research design, methodological explanation, data analysis, interpretation, or the presentation of findings. Authors must address the reviewers' and editor's comments and provide a clear response explaining how each concern has been handled. A major revision does not guarantee acceptance.
The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication because of concerns such as insufficient originality, fundamental scientific or methodological weaknesses, limited relevance to the journal's scope, unresolved ethical issues, or failure to meet the required scholarly standards. A rejection decision may be made at initial screening or after external peer review.
Authors invited to revise their manuscripts should submit the revised version within the deadline communicated by the editorial office. The revision should address the editor's and reviewers' comments systematically. Authors are expected to provide a point-by-point response indicating the changes made and, where a suggestion is not adopted, a reasoned academic explanation. Page numbers, section headings, or other clear location indicators should be provided to help editors and reviewers verify the revisions.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, assessed by new reviewers, or evaluated directly by the editor, depending on the nature of the revisions and the editorial decision. Failure to submit a revision within the specified period may result in closure of the submission or a request to submit the manuscript as a new submission, subject to the journal's procedures.
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was affected by a significant factual error, a material misunderstanding of the manuscript, a procedural irregularity, or an identifiable conflict of interest may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. The appeal should clearly identify the decision being challenged, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide relevant evidence or scholarly arguments. Disagreement with a decision alone, without substantive justification, may not be sufficient grounds for an appeal.
The Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor who was not involved in the original decision will assess the appeal, taking into account the arguments presented and the applicable editorial procedures. Where justified, the journal may seek an additional independent assessment, including further external reviews. The journal may invite two additional reviewers when the circumstances warrant further expert evaluation; however, such review is not automatic and does not guarantee a change in the original decision. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the authors and will be treated as final under the journal's applicable procedures.
Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, personal, institutional, or collaborative relationships that could reasonably be perceived to influence their judgment. A person with a relevant conflict of interest must not participate in the evaluation or decision-making process unless the journal has determined that appropriate safeguards are sufficient to manage the conflict.
If a manuscript is submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, an editorial board member, or another person with editorial responsibility, the submission must be handled by an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. The submitting individual must not influence reviewer selection, access confidential reviewer identities, or participate in the editorial decision concerning their own manuscript.
Manuscripts under review, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and information concerning editorial deliberations are confidential and must not be disclosed to unauthorized parties. Reviewers must not use unpublished information for their own research or advantage. Editors are responsible for protecting confidential information and managing suspected cases of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, authorship disputes, or other potential breaches of publication ethics in accordance with the journal's relevant policies.
Where a potential ethical concern is identified, the journal may request clarification or supporting documentation from the authors, consult appropriate experts, or take other proportionate steps consistent with established publication ethics guidance. Editorial decisions and any subsequent action must be based on documented concerns and fair procedures.
The duration of peer review may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the need for additional expertise, and the time required for authors to complete revisions. The editorial office seeks to manage submissions in a timely manner and to communicate decisions and revision requirements as clearly as practicable. Any estimated review timeline provided by the journal should be understood as indicative rather than a guarantee of a particular decision date.
SEARCH: Science Education Research Journal is committed to a peer-review system that upholds academic rigor, editorial independence, confidentiality, fairness, and research integrity. Through independent expert assessment and responsible editorial oversight, the journal seeks to publish research that makes a credible, transparent, and meaningful contribution to science education and related scholarly fields.
