Peer Review Process
Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation adopts a double-anonymous peer review system. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous evaluation by experts in the relevant field to assess their quality, originality, and suitability for publication. This process is intended to maintain scholarly standards, ensure academic credibility, and enhance the overall quality of published works. The peer review procedure consists of the following nine stages.
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system (OJS). To support author convenience, submissions may also be temporarily accepted via email.
2. Preliminary Editorial Screening
The editorial office conducts an initial review to ensure that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s focus and scope. The structure and formatting are checked according to the Author Guidelines to confirm that all required components are included. At this stage, the editor also evaluates the basic quality of the manuscript and identifies any major methodological concerns. Manuscripts that pass this screening are examined using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin) before proceeding to peer review.
3. Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief assesses whether the manuscript is original, relevant, and contributes significantly to the field of educational technology and innovation. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without further review.
4. Reviewer Invitation
The handling editor invites qualified reviewers based on their expertise, research interests, and absence of conflicts of interest. The journal employs a double-anonymous review process, meaning that both authors and reviewers remain unaware of each other’s identities. Manuscripts are therefore shared with reviewers in an anonymous format.
5. Reviewer Response
Invited reviewers evaluate the request based on their competence, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. They may accept or decline the invitation. If declining, reviewers may suggest alternative experts for consideration.
6. Review Implementation
Reviewers thoroughly examine the manuscript, typically through multiple readings. The initial reading helps form a general impression, while subsequent readings allow for a detailed and systematic evaluation. Reviewers then provide recommendations to accept, reject, or request revisions (minor or major).
7. Editorial Evaluation of Reviews
The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all reviewer reports to make an informed decision. If significant discrepancies arise between reviewers’ recommendations, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide further assessment.
8. Decision Notification
The editor communicates the decision to the corresponding author via email, including anonymized reviewer comments and suggestions for improvement. Reviewers are also notified of the final decision regarding the manuscript.
9. Final Processing and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copy-editing and formatting before publication. If revisions are requested, authors must revise the manuscript according to reviewer feedback and resubmit it. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation, although minor revisions may be assessed directly by the editor.
The average duration of the review process is approximately 12 weeks (3 months). Once accepted, articles are published online and made freely accessible as downloadable PDF files.
