Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Educational Contemporary Explorations (IJECE) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review system designed to ensure fairness, objectivity, and adherence to high scholarly standards. All manuscripts undergo several stages of evaluation before a final editorial decision is made.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submission is first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor to determine its suitability for the journal’s aims and scope. Manuscripts are assessed for originality, relevance, clarity, methodological soundness, and ethical compliance. Submissions that do not meet basic academic standards or fall outside the journal’s scope are returned to the authors without external review.

  1. Plagiarism and Similarity Check

All manuscripts passing the initial screening undergo plagiarism detection using reputable similarity-checking software. Excessive overlap, unattributed copying, or any instance of academic misconduct leads to immediate rejection. Authors may be asked to revise if similarity arises from poor citation practices rather than intentional plagiarism.

  1. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass both checks are assigned to at least two qualified peer reviewers with expertise in the subject area. Reviewer selection is based on specialization, publication history, and experience with scholarly evaluation. Conflicts of interest are avoided through strict reviewer selection guidelines.

  1. Double-Blind Review

The journal implements a fully double-blind process:

Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

This ensures impartial evaluation and minimizes bias related to gender, nationality, institution, or academic status.

  1. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality and significance of the research

Theoretical foundation and contribution to the field

Methodological rigor and clarity of procedures

Accuracy and coherence of analysis

Quality of writing and organization

Ethical compliance in research design and reporting

Relevance to contemporary educational issues

Reviewers provide detailed comments and constructive recommendations to guide authors in improving their work.

  1. Editorial Decision

After receiving reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief synthesizes the feedback and makes one of the following decisions:

Accept without revisions

Accept with minor revisions

Major revision and resubmission

Reject

Decisions are communicated to authors along with anonymous reviewer comments.

  1. Revision and Resubmission

Authors who receive revision requests are expected to address all comments thoroughly. A point-by-point response letter must accompany the revised manuscript. Revised submissions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

  1. Final Acceptance and Copyediting

Manuscripts approved for publication proceed to the copyediting and formatting stage. Authors review proofs to ensure accuracy of content before the article is prepared for online publication.

  1. Post-Publication Review and Corrections

The journal maintains policies for post-publication corrections when significant errors or ethical issues are identified. Retractions, corrections, or editorial notices follow COPE guidelines to ensure transparency and scientific integrity.