Journal of Inclusive and Innovative Educational Technology

Peer Review Process

Type of Peer Review

Journal of Inclusive and Innovative Educational Technology applies a double blind peer review process. In this review system, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. This process is intended to ensure objectivity, fairness, academic integrity, and impartiality in evaluating manuscripts.

Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers, the editorial team will remove or hide any information that may reveal the identity of the author(s), including names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other identifying details.

Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who have expertise relevant to the topic, scope, and methodology of the manuscript. If there are substantial differences between the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor may assign an additional reviewer or make an editorial assessment based on the quality of the review comments and the manuscript’s academic merit.

Review Workflow

The peer review process in Journal of Inclusive and Innovative Educational Technology follows these stages:

1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit manuscripts through the journal’s Online Journal System (OJS). The manuscript must follow the journal template, author guidelines, and publication ethics policy.

2. Initial Editorial Screening
The editor checks the manuscript to ensure that it fits the journal’s aims and scope, follows the required format, uses appropriate academic language, and meets basic publication ethics requirements. The manuscript may also be checked for similarity or plagiarism at this stage.

3. Assignment to Section Editor or Handling Editor
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a section editor or handling editor who is responsible for managing the review process.

4. Double Blind Peer Review
The manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, relevance, methodology, clarity, academic contribution, data validity, discussion quality, and compliance with ethical standards.

5. Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers provide comments and recommendations to the editor. The possible recommendations include: accepted, accepted with minor revisions, revised and resubmitted, or rejected.

6. Editorial Decision
The editor considers the reviewers’ comments and recommendations before making a decision. The decision is then communicated to the author through OJS.

7. Author Revision
If revision is required, authors must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. Authors must also provide a response to reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed.

8. Re-evaluation
Revised manuscripts may be checked again by the editor or returned to reviewers when necessary, especially if major revisions are required.

9. Final Decision
After the manuscript meets the journal’s academic, technical, and ethical standards, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor based on the journal’s editorial policy.

10. Copyediting, Layout, and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and final publication.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  1. Relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal.
  2. Originality and novelty of the research or ideas presented.
  3. Clarity of the research problem, objectives, and research questions.
  4. Strength and relevance of the theoretical or conceptual framework.
  5. Appropriateness of the research method, design, instruments, and data analysis.
  6. Validity, reliability, credibility, or trustworthiness of the data and findings.
  7. Clarity and accuracy of the results.
  8. Depth of discussion and connection with previous studies.
  9. Contribution to inclusive and innovative educational technology.
  10. Quality of academic writing, structure, and presentation.
  11. Compliance with citation and reference style.
  12. Compliance with publication ethics, including originality, plagiarism prevention, authorship, and conflict of interest.

Editorial Decision Criteria

The editorial decision is based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor’s assessment, and the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s academic and ethical standards. The possible editorial decisions are:

1. Accepted

The manuscript is accepted for publication without substantial revision. Minor technical corrections may still be required during copyediting or proofreading.

2. Accepted with Minor Revisions

The manuscript is considered suitable for publication but requires minor improvements, such as clarification of arguments, correction of language, improvement of tables or figures, citation adjustments, or minor methodological explanation.

3. Major Revisions / Revise and Resubmit

The manuscript has potential for publication but requires substantial revision. Major revision may include improvement of the research method, data analysis, theoretical framework, discussion, structure, or interpretation of findings. The revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

4. Rejected

The manuscript is rejected if it does not fit the journal’s scope, lacks originality, has serious methodological weaknesses, contains insufficient data, fails to meet academic standards, or violates publication ethics.

Estimated Review Time

The estimated time for the peer review process is as follows:

The total review and editorial decision process usually takes approximately 6–12 weeks. However, the duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the quality of the manuscript, the extent of revision required, and the responsiveness of the authors.

Final Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor based on the reviewers’ recommendations, editorial evaluation, and the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s standards. Reviewers provide academic recommendations, but the authority to make the final publication decision rests with the editorial team.

The journal ensures that all editorial decisions are made objectively, transparently, and ethically, without discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, or personal background of the authors.