Peer Review Process

The Journal of Educational Research and Practice (JERP) applies a double-anonymous peer-review process to manuscripts that proceed beyond initial editorial assessment. Peer review is intended to evaluate the scholarly quality, relevance, methodological or analytical rigour, ethical integrity, and contribution of submitted work.

The identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the review process. Authors are therefore responsible for preparing anonymised manuscripts and removing information that could unnecessarily reveal their identities.

Review Workflow

1. Submission and Initial Editorial Assessment

Each manuscript is first assessed by the editorial team for its relevance to the aims and scope of JERP, scholarly quality, methodological or analytical adequacy, originality, reporting completeness, and compliance with research and publication ethics. Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope or do not meet minimum editorial standards may be declined without external peer review.

2. Similarity and Research-Integrity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be screened using similarity-detection software and other editorial checks. JERP does not determine plagiarism solely on the basis of a fixed similarity percentage. Textual overlap is assessed according to its source, extent, nature, attribution, and context.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that proceed to external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of expertise, independence, availability, and the absence of relevant competing interests. An additional reviewer may be appointed where reports differ substantially or specialist assessment is required.

4. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Reviewers assess the manuscript independently and confidentially. They are expected to evaluate the relevance of the research question, engagement with existing scholarship, theoretical or conceptual framing, methodology, analysis, interpretation, conclusions, reporting quality, ethical considerations, and contribution to educational research or practice.

5. Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The handling editor considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, ethical or integrity considerations, and the overall suitability of the work before reaching a decision.

Possible decisions are Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

6. Revision by Authors

Where revision is invited, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear point-by-point response to the reviewer and editorial comments. Authors may disagree with a recommendation, but any substantive disagreement should be explained clearly and supported by appropriate scholarly reasoning or evidence.

7. Reassessment of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor, returned to the original reviewers, or sent to additional reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. A request for revision does not constitute acceptance.

8. Final Decision

The final decision remains the responsibility of the journal editor. Where necessary, the Editor-in-Chief or another independent senior editor may be involved, particularly where reviewer recommendations differ substantially or where ethical or procedural issues require further consideration.

Review Timeline

External peer review is normally completed within approximately 4–12 weeks from the point at which a manuscript enters external review.

Actual processing times may vary according to reviewer availability, the complexity or interdisciplinarity of the manuscript, the need for additional specialist review, and the number of revision rounds.

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

Reviewer Confidentiality and Competing Interests

Reviewers are required to treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not share, reproduce, or use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest that may affect their independence. Where appropriate independence cannot be maintained, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

Use of Generative AI in Peer Review

Submitted manuscripts and associated materials are confidential. Reviewers and editors must comply with JERP’s Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy .

Reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, figures, tables, datasets, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, or confidential editorial correspondence to external AI systems where doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or data protection.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly and ethical considerations and are independent of authors’ institutional affiliation, nationality, professional status, financial circumstances, or relationship with the journal.

Payment of an Article Processing Charge, eligibility for a waiver, or membership of the Editorial Board does not influence peer review or editorial decisions.

Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Where an editor or Editorial Board member is an author of a submitted manuscript, that individual must have no involvement in the editorial assessment, reviewer selection, peer-review process, or final decision.

The manuscript must be handled independently by an editor who has no relevant competing interest. Where appropriate, the published article may include a statement explaining how the competing interest was managed.

Further Information

This page provides an overview of JERP’s peer-review workflow. Detailed provisions concerning editorial decision-making, reviewer responsibilities, competing interests, appeals, confidentiality, research integrity, and editor-authored submissions are provided in the Editorial and Peer Review Policy .

Related JERP Policies

Editorial and Peer Review Policy	Publication Ethics
Originality, Plagiarism, and Similarity Policy	Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy
Author Guidelines