Editorial and Peer Review Policy

 

1. Editorial Assessment

All submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.

The editorial assessment considers whether the manuscript:

• falls within the aims and scope of JERP;
• makes a sufficiently clear scholarly contribution;
• demonstrates an appropriate research design, analytical approach, or conceptual framework;
• provides adequate evidence to support its claims and conclusions;
• complies with relevant research and publication ethics;
• is sufficiently clear and complete to permit scholarly evaluation;
• follows the journal’s submission and reporting requirements; and
• demonstrates appropriate originality and attribution.

A manuscript may be declined without external peer review where it is outside the journal’s scope, does not meet minimum scholarly or methodological standards, presents substantial ethical or integrity concerns, or is insufficiently developed for external evaluation.

A decision to decline a manuscript at the editorial assessment stage is not a judgement on the general importance of the topic, but reflects its suitability for consideration by JERP in its submitted form.

2. Peer Review Model

Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the peer-review process. The journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, while authors are responsible for preparing anonymised manuscripts and removing information that could unnecessarily reveal their identities.

Manuscripts that proceed to external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

An additional reviewer may be appointed where:

• the initial reviewer reports differ substantially;
• specialist expertise is required;
• methodological or statistical assessment is necessary;
• an ethical or research-integrity issue requires additional evaluation; or
• the handling editor considers further assessment necessary for an informed decision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the handling editor and, where appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their:

• subject or methodological expertise;
• suitability for the manuscript under consideration;
• independence from the authors and the research;
• ability to provide a constructive and evidence-informed assessment; and
• availability to complete the review within a reasonable period.

Reviewers may be drawn from the journal’s reviewer database, the wider scholarly community, or, where appropriate, members of the Editorial Board. Editorial Board membership does not in itself qualify an individual to review a manuscript, and all reviewers are expected to meet the same standards of expertise, independence, confidentiality, and competing-interest disclosure.

The journal seeks to avoid assigning reviewers where professional, institutional, personal, financial, collaborative, or other relationships could reasonably be perceived as compromising the independence of the review.

Authors may identify individuals who should not be invited to review their manuscript and may provide a brief justification. Such requests will be considered by the editor but are not binding on the journal.

4. Reviewer Independence and Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.

A reviewer should decline an invitation where they:

• have a significant current or recent collaborative relationship with an author;
• have a direct personal, financial, institutional, or professional interest in the manuscript;
• are involved in closely competing or directly related work that may compromise impartiality; or
• otherwise believe that they cannot provide an independent assessment.

The handling editor determines whether a disclosed interest is compatible with participation in the review process.

5. Confidentiality of Peer Review

Manuscripts submitted to JERP are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• share the manuscript or reviewer report with unauthorised individuals;
• use unpublished information, data, arguments, or ideas for personal or professional advantage;
• contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review; or
• disclose information about the review process outside the editorial system.

Where a reviewer believes that additional expertise is required, they should contact the journal rather than involving another person without prior editorial permission.

Editors and members of the editorial team are likewise expected to maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and reviewer identities.

6. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Because submitted manuscripts contain confidential and potentially unpublished material, reviewers and editors must comply with JERP’s current Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy .

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, confidential editorial correspondence, or unpublished research data must not be uploaded to generative AI systems or other external tools in a manner that could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, research integrity, or data protection.

Human reviewers and editors remain fully responsible for all evaluations, recommendations, and editorial decisions.

7. Similarity and Originality Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be screened using similarity-detection software as part of the journal’s editorial and research-integrity assessment.

Similarity reports are treated as screening tools rather than as evidence of misconduct in themselves. Editors consider the source, extent, distribution, and context of textual overlap, including:

• appropriately quoted and attributed material;
• standard methodological terminology;
• references and bibliographic material;
• text derived from the authors’ previous publications;
• legitimate descriptions of established procedures; and
• potentially inappropriate copying or text recycling.

Where potentially problematic overlap is identified, the journal may request clarification or revision, decline the manuscript, or take further action in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics .

8. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide assessments that are scholarly, constructive, specific, and respectful.

Reviews should consider, as appropriate:

• the significance and relevance of the research question;
• the relationship between the manuscript and relevant scholarship;
• the appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
• the suitability and transparency of the methodology;
• the adequacy of data analysis or argumentation;
• the relationship between evidence, interpretation, and conclusions;
• the clarity and organisation of the manuscript;
• limitations and boundary conditions of the findings;
• ethical and research-integrity considerations; and
• the contribution of the manuscript to educational research or practice.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, hostile language, and requests intended primarily to increase citations to a reviewer’s own work are not acceptable.

Reviewers should notify the editor if they identify substantial overlap, possible duplicate publication, citation manipulation, fabricated or implausible data, undisclosed competing interests, or other potential research-integrity concerns.

9. Editorial Decisions

Following editorial assessment or external peer review, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

Accept	The manuscript is considered suitable for publication, subject to final editorial, technical, and production checks.
Minor Revision	The manuscript requires limited clarification, correction, or improvement that does not substantially alter the research design, central analysis, or principal conclusions.
Major Revision	The manuscript requires substantial revision before its suitability for publication can be determined. A major revision decision does not constitute acceptance.
Reject	The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in JERP in its current form, based on scholarly, methodological, ethical, editorial, or scope-related considerations.

Where appropriate, a manuscript may also be declined during initial editorial assessment without external peer review.

The final decision is made by the responsible editor on the basis of the manuscript, reviewer reports, authors’ responses, applicable journal policies, and any relevant ethical or editorial considerations.

Editors are not required to follow the numerical majority of reviewer recommendations where the scholarly reasoning in the reports supports a different conclusion.

10. Revision and Author Responses

Where revision is invited, authors should provide:

• a revised manuscript;
• a clear response to each reviewer and editorial comment; and
• an explanation where a recommendation has not been adopted.

Authors are not required to agree with every reviewer recommendation, but substantive disagreements should be explained in a scholarly and evidence-based manner.

Revised manuscripts may be:

• assessed by the handling editor;
• returned to the original reviewers;
• sent to one or more additional reviewers; or
• subject to further editorial or integrity checks.

The appropriate procedure depends on the nature and extent of the revisions. Repeated revision does not guarantee acceptance.

11. Peer-Review Timeline

JERP aims to conduct peer review efficiently while allowing sufficient time for careful scholarly assessment.

Actual review times may vary depending on:

• reviewer availability;
• the complexity or interdisciplinarity of the manuscript;
• the need for specialist or additional review;
• the responsiveness of reviewers and authors; and
• the number and extent of revision rounds.

The journal does not guarantee a fixed review period, as the quality and independence of the evaluation take precedence over speed.

12. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial, institutional, political, personal, or financial considerations.

Payment of an Article Processing Charge, eligibility for a fee waiver, institutional affiliation, nationality, professional status, previous relationship with the journal, or membership of the journal’s editorial structures must not influence peer review or editorial decisions.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript and its scholarly and ethical merits. The publisher does not determine whether an individual manuscript is accepted or rejected.

13. Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members

JERP does not prohibit editors, Editorial Board members, or individuals involved in journal management from submitting scholarly work to the journal.

However, such manuscripts are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as all other submissions.

Where an editor, Editorial Board member, or other individual involved in the journal is an author:

• the author-editor must not participate in the initial editorial assessment;
• they must not select or recommend reviewers;
• they must not have access to reviewer identities where these would not normally be available to authors;
• they must not participate in discussions concerning the editorial decision;
• they must not make or influence the final decision; and
• the manuscript must be handled by an independent editor who has no relevant competing interest.

Where appropriate, the published article may include a statement explaining how the editorial competing interest was managed.

14. Submissions Involving the Editor-in-Chief

Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author or has another relevant competing interest, responsibility for the manuscript must be transferred to an independent senior editor or another suitably qualified editor who has no relevant conflict.

The Editor-in-Chief must have no involvement in reviewer selection, peer review, editorial deliberation, or the final decision for that manuscript.

15. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Collections

Manuscripts submitted to special issues, thematic collections, or guest-edited sections are subject to the same standards of scholarly quality, research integrity, editorial independence, and peer review as manuscripts submitted to regular issues.

Guest Editors must declare relevant competing interests and must not independently make decisions on manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated independent editor retains oversight of the editorial process and may intervene where necessary to protect the integrity and independence of peer review.

16. Research-Integrity Concerns During Review

Where a reviewer or editor identifies a possible research-integrity concern, the matter will be considered separately from routine scholarly disagreement.

Such concerns may include:

• plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• fabrication or falsification of data;
• inappropriate image manipulation;
• citation manipulation;
• authorship disputes;
• undisclosed competing interests;
• ethical concerns involving research participants;
• unreliable or unverifiable references; or
• other conduct that may compromise the reliability of the scholarly record.

The journal may pause the editorial process while clarification or supporting documentation is requested.

Research-integrity matters are handled in accordance with JERP’s Publication Ethics and, where relevant, recognised publication-ethics guidance.

17. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that:

• a significant factual or procedural error affected the decision;
• reviewer comments materially misinterpreted the manuscript;
• relevant evidence was overlooked; or
• the journal’s editorial procedures were not appropriately followed.

An appeal should provide a concise, evidence-based explanation and should address the substantive grounds for reconsideration.

Disagreement with an editorial decision alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for appeal.

Appeals are assessed by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision where practicable. The outcome of the appeal may be to uphold the original decision, obtain additional review, or reconsider the manuscript.

The journal is not obliged to consider repeated appeals concerning the same editorial decision.

18. Complaints About the Editorial Process

Concerns about editorial conduct, peer-review procedure, confidentiality, competing interests, or adherence to journal policy may be submitted confidentially to the JERP editorial office.

Complaints will be considered separately from ordinary academic disagreement about the content of reviewer reports.

Where a complaint concerns an individual editor, it should be assessed by another editor or an appropriate representative of the publisher who is not directly involved in the matter.

19. Reviewer Recognition and Anonymity

JERP recognises the contribution of peer reviewers to scholarly publishing while maintaining the confidentiality required by its double-anonymous review model.

Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors through the peer-review process unless the journal adopts a specific form of open peer review for a clearly identified publication initiative and all relevant participants have agreed in advance.

Any public acknowledgement of reviewers should not connect individual reviewers with specific manuscripts unless explicit consent has been obtained.

20. Responsibility for the Final Decision

Reviewer reports form an important part of the editorial process, but responsibility for publication decisions remains with the journal.

The handling editor considers:

• the manuscript as a whole;
• reviewer assessments;
• authors’ responses and revisions;
• the reliability and appropriateness of the evidence;
• ethical and research-integrity considerations;
• consistency with the journal’s aims and scope; and
• relevant editorial policies.

Acceptance following peer review does not remove the journal’s right to reconsider publication where significant ethical, legal, integrity, or reliability concerns emerge before publication.

Related JERP Policies

This policy should be read together with the journal’s:

Publication Ethics	Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy
Author Guidelines	Publication Fees and Waiver Policy
Open Access and Copyright Policy	Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
Complaints and Appeals Policy