Manuscript Readiness Level
Manuscript Readiness Level
Editorial Readiness Rubric for Submissions to the Journal of Educational Research and Practice
The Manuscript Readiness Level (MRL) is JERP’s editorial screening instrument for assessing whether a manuscript is sufficiently aligned, rigorous, ethical, and technically complete before it is considered for external peer review.
MRL is not a peer-review decision and does not guarantee acceptance. It is a quality-assurance mechanism that helps editors identify manuscripts that are ready for review, require revision before review, or fall outside the journal’s scholarly expectations.
Purpose of the MRL: to support transparent, consistent, and constructive editorial screening while helping authors strengthen the scholarly quality, ethical clarity, and submission readiness of their manuscripts.
JERP Editorial Focus
JERP welcomes scholarly work on education, pedagogy, and learning practices that engages one or more of the following editorial pathways.
Equity in Education
Research addressing fairness, access, participation, inclusion, marginalization, diversity, or structural barriers in education.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Research engaging learners’ cultural, linguistic, religious, local, Indigenous, or community-based knowledge in education.
Community-Engaged Practice
Research connecting educational institutions with families, communities, practitioners, local organizations, or public stakeholders.
Sustainable Educational Development
Research contributing to long-term improvement in curriculum, institutions, teacher capacity, policy, or social sustainability.
Ethical Digital Transformation
Research examining educational technology, AI, digital learning, data use, privacy, digital equity, or responsible innovation.
Integrated Pathway
Research combining two or more pathways, such as equity-oriented AI, culturally responsive digital pedagogy, or community-based curriculum.
JERP Alignment Pathways
| Editorial Pathway | Manuscript Should Demonstrate |
|---|---|
| Equity in education | The manuscript examines fairness, access, participation, inclusion, marginalization, diversity, or structural barriers in education. |
| Culturally responsive pedagogy | The manuscript engages learners’ cultural, linguistic, religious, local, Indigenous, or community-based knowledge in curriculum, teaching, assessment, or learning. |
| Community-engaged learning and educational practice | The manuscript shows meaningful connections between educational institutions and families, communities, practitioners, local organizations, or public stakeholders. |
| Sustainable educational development | The manuscript contributes to long-term improvement in curriculum, institutions, teacher capacity, educational policy, social sustainability, or environmentally aware education. |
| Ethical digital transformation in education | The manuscript critically examines educational technology, AI, digital learning, data use, platformization, privacy, digital equity, or responsible innovation. |
| Integrated pathway | The manuscript combines two or more pathways, such as equity-oriented AI in education, culturally responsive digital pedagogy, or community-based sustainable curriculum development. |
Scoring Scale
Each component is scored from 1 to 5. The score should reflect the manuscript’s current quality at the point of editorial screening.
| Score | Level | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Not ready | The component is absent, unclear, misaligned, or ethically problematic. |
| 2 | Underdeveloped | The component is present but weak, generic, inconsistent, or insufficiently supported. |
| 3 | Developing | The component meets basic scholarly expectations but needs refinement before review. |
| 4 | Review-ready | The component is clear, coherent, well-supported, and suitable for peer-review consideration. |
| 5 | Highly ready | The component is rigorous, original, well-integrated, and internationally readable. |
Weighted Score = Raw Score ÷ 5 × Component Weight
Maximum Score = 100 points
Maximum Score = 100 points
Weighted MRL Rubric
| No. | Component | Weight | Critical Minimum | Evaluation Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Editorial fit and JERP pathway alignment | 12 | 4 | The manuscript clearly contributes to education, pedagogy, or learning practices and is explicitly connected to at least one JERP editorial pathway. The study moves beyond description and offers a meaningful scholarly, practical, policy, or conceptual contribution. |
| 2 | Title, abstract, and keywords | 8 | 3 | The title is precise and informative. The abstract presents the context, problem, purpose, method or approach, main findings or argument, contribution, and implications. Keywords are searchable, specific, and aligned with the manuscript’s focus. |
| 3 | Problem framing and literature positioning | 12 | 4 | The introduction defines a focused educational problem, explains why it matters, synthesizes relevant scholarship, identifies a clear gap, and states the research question, objective, proposition, or review question. |
| 4 | Research design or scholarly procedure | 16 | 4 | The manuscript uses a design or scholarly approach that fits its purpose. Empirical studies report context, participants, instruments or data sources, procedures, validity, reliability or trustworthiness, analysis, and ethics. Reviews explain search, screening, selection, appraisal, and synthesis. Conceptual papers present a clear theoretical lens and disciplined argument. |
| 5 | Evidence and analytic quality | 12 | 4 | Claims are supported by appropriate evidence, data, literature, or conceptual reasoning. Analysis is transparent and proportionate to the research purpose. Quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, review, and conceptual manuscripts demonstrate suitable standards of evidence for their article type. |
| 6 | Presentation of findings, synthesis, or argument | 10 | 3 | Findings, themes, models, propositions, or review results are organized logically and connected to the research questions or analytical framework. Tables, figures, excerpts, and visual materials are relevant, readable, and not excessive. |
| 7 | Discussion, contribution, and boundary of claims | 12 | 3 | The discussion interprets the findings or argument in relation to prior literature and JERP’s editorial pathways. It explains contributions to research, pedagogy, policy, curriculum, community practice, or responsible technology use. Limitations are acknowledged, and claims are not overstated. |
| 8 | Ethics, equity, and research integrity | 10 | 4 | The manuscript reports ethical approval or exemption, informed consent, confidentiality, authorship responsibility, funding, conflicts of interest, and AI-assisted work where relevant. It avoids deficit framing of learners, teachers, communities, or cultures and treats digital tools and data responsibly. |
| 9 | Citation quality and academic English | 5 | 3 | References are relevant, traceable, current where necessary, and formatted according to JERP requirements. The writing is concise, formal, coherent, and accessible to international academic readers. |
| 10 | Submission completeness | 3 | 3 | The manuscript follows the latest JERP template, includes all required sections and declarations, and is ready for editorial handling. Tables, figures, supplementary files, author information, anonymized files where required, and permissions are complete. |
MRL Decision Levels
| Weighted Score | MRL Level | Editorial Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| 90–100 | MRL 5: Ready for Peer Review | The manuscript is aligned, rigorous, ethical, clearly written, and technically complete. It may proceed to external review if all critical minimums are met. |
| 80–89 | MRL 4: Minor Refinement Required | The manuscript is broadly ready but requires limited revision in clarity, argumentation, reporting, citation, or formatting. |
| 65–79 | MRL 3: Major Revision Required | The manuscript has scholarly potential but requires substantial improvement before peer review. |
| 50–64 | MRL 2: Substantial Redevelopment Required | The manuscript is not yet review-ready and requires major redevelopment of design, evidence, analysis, argument, or presentation. |
| Below 50 | MRL 1: Not Ready for Editorial Processing | The manuscript is outside JERP’s focus, academically underdeveloped, ethically problematic, incomplete, or unsuitable for peer-review consideration. |
Critical Minimum Rules
A manuscript should not proceed to external peer review when any of the following conditions apply:
- Editorial fit and JERP pathway alignment scores below 4.
- Problem framing and literature positioning scores below 4.
- Research design or scholarly procedure scores below 4.
- Evidence and analytic quality scores below 4.
- Ethics, equity, and research integrity scores below 4.
- Serious concerns exist regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, manipulated authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, missing participant protection, or irresponsible use of generative AI.
- A manuscript with a high total score but a failed critical minimum should be capped at MRL 3 until the critical issue is resolved.
Article-Type Guidance
| Article Type | Editorial Emphasis |
|---|---|
| Quantitative empirical study | Sampling, instruments, validity, reliability, assumptions, statistical analysis, effect size or model interpretation, and ethical approval. |
| Qualitative empirical study | Context, participant selection, data generation, coding or interpretation, trustworthiness, reflexivity, participant protection, and depth of evidence. |
| Mixed-methods study | Clear design logic, integration of qualitative and quantitative strands, triangulation or explanation, and integrated interpretation. |
| Systematic review, scoping review, or meta-analysis | Review question, databases, search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, screening, appraisal, synthesis, and transparent reporting. |
| Conceptual or theoretical paper | Conceptual problem, theoretical grounding, literature logic, coherence of argument, originality, and contribution to educational thought. |
| Policy, curriculum, or practice analysis | Policy or curriculum context, analytical framework, stakeholder relevance, equity implications, and practical significance. |
| Educational technology or design-based study | Pedagogical problem, design rationale, implementation evidence, user or learner experience, ethical data use, and sustainability of innovation. |
Author Self-Assessment Before Submission
Authors should ensure that the manuscript meets the following requirements before submission.
| No. | Checklist Item | Check |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The article type is clear and appropriate for the manuscript’s purpose. | |
| 2 | The manuscript is explicitly connected to at least one JERP editorial pathway. | |
| 3 | The title, abstract, and keywords accurately represent the study. | |
| 4 | The introduction presents a focused problem, relevant literature, clear gap, and explicit research purpose. | |
| 5 | The method, review procedure, or conceptual approach is transparent and suitable. | |
| 6 | Findings, synthesis, or arguments are supported by credible evidence. | |
| 7 | The discussion explains contribution, implications, limitations, and future research directions. | |
| 8 | Ethical approval, consent, confidentiality, funding, conflicts of interest, and AI use are reported where applicable. | |
| 9 | Citations and references are accurate, complete, and formatted according to JERP requirements. | |
| 10 | The manuscript follows the latest JERP template and includes all required submission files. |
Recommended Author Alignment Statement
Authors may include a short statement in the cover letter.
This manuscript aligns with JERP’s pathway on [insert pathway] by examining [insert issue/context] and contributing to [insert contribution to pedagogy, policy, curriculum, community practice, equity, sustainability, or responsible digital transformation].
Example:
This manuscript aligns with JERP’s pathways on equity in education and ethical digital transformation by examining how AI-supported learning tools can improve participation and pedagogical responsiveness for learners in under-resourced school contexts.
