Review Process Policy

The International Journal of Education and Teaching Zone (IJETZ) is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, research integrity, and transparency in scholarly publishing. IJETZ applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to evaluate manuscripts submitted for publication.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's preliminary requirements and are considered suitable for external review are evaluated by two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other throughout the peer-review process.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's academic merit, originality, relevance, methodological quality, ethical integrity, and contribution to the fields of education and teaching. The peer-review process consists of the following nine stages.

1. Manuscript Submission

The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the IJETZ online submission system using Open Journal Systems (OJS).

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts comply with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, manuscript template, and applicable research ethics requirements. Submissions must constitute original scholarly work and must not be under consideration for publication by another journal.

Authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their submissions, appropriate acknowledgment of sources, proper authorship attribution, and disclosure of relevant ethical considerations.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic submission and publication requirements. The screening considers:

  • Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.

  • Compliance with the Author Guidelines and manuscript formatting requirements.

  • Originality and preliminary academic quality.

  • Adequacy of the manuscript's scholarly contribution.

  • Compliance with applicable research ethics and publication requirements.

A similarity check using Turnitin or an equivalent tool is conducted to support the assessment of originality. Similarity reports are interpreted in context and are not used as the sole basis for determining plagiarism.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy the essential requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected at this stage. Only manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to editorial assessment for external peer review.

3. Editor-in-Chief Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the manuscript's academic merit, originality, significance, relevance to education and teaching, and suitability for IJETZ.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scholarly contribution, or present fundamental methodological or ethical concerns may be rejected without external peer review.

Manuscripts considered suitable proceed to the selection and invitation of external reviewers.

4. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

The handling editor selects and invites two independent reviewers whose expertise and research experience are relevant to the manuscript's subject matter.

Reviewer selection considers subject expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, availability, independence, and potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers must be able to assess the manuscript objectively and must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before undertaking the review.

Reviewers with relationships or interests that could compromise the impartiality of their assessments must not participate in the review.

If an invited reviewer declines the invitation or cannot complete the assessment, the editor invites a suitable replacement to ensure that the manuscript receives two independent reviews.

5. Reviewer Acceptance and Confidentiality

Invited reviewers are expected to confirm that the manuscript falls within their expertise, that they can complete the assessment within the requested timeframe, and that no conflict of interest would compromise their impartiality.

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript, its contents, and the review process. They must not disclose unpublished information, use the manuscript for personal advantage, or share it with unauthorized individuals.

Any concerns regarding research integrity, ethical compliance, suspected plagiarism, or other potential misconduct must be communicated confidentially to the handling editor.

To maintain the double-blind review process, IJETZ takes reasonable measures to remove identifying information from manuscripts provided to reviewers. Authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities, and reviewers are not provided with identifying information about the authors.

6. Double-Blind Peer Review

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening and is approved for external review is evaluated by two independent reviewers. Both reviewers assess the manuscript against the journal's academic and ethical standards.

The review considers, as applicable:

  • Originality, relevance, and significance of the research.

  • Adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework.

  • Appropriateness and rigor of the research design and methodology.

  • Quality of data analysis and interpretation.

  • Consistency between the findings, discussion, and conclusions.

  • Engagement with relevant scholarly literature.

  • Clarity of academic writing, organization, and presentation.

  • Compliance with applicable research ethics and reporting standards.

  • Contribution to knowledge, educational practice, and the broader field of education and teaching.

Each reviewer provides a reasoned assessment, constructive comments, and a recommendation regarding the manuscript's suitability for publication. The possible recommendations are:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

  • Minor Revision: Limited corrections or improvements are required.

  • Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards or is unsuitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final editorial decision.

7. Editorial Evaluation

After both reviewer reports have been received, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor evaluates the assessments, recommendations, and overall academic quality of the manuscript.

The editor considers the substance of the reviewer comments, the manuscript's scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and compliance with the journal's publication standards.

If the reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the editor assesses the reasons for the disagreement and may seek clarification, request further revisions, or invite an additional independent reviewer when necessary.

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor retains responsibility for the editorial decision. Decisions are made independently and are based on scholarly merit, the reviewers' assessments, and the journal's editorial policies.

8. Editorial Decision and Manuscript Revision

The corresponding author is notified of the editorial decision through the journal's submission system or official editorial communication. Relevant reviewer comments are provided in anonymized form.

When revisions are required, authors must submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. If a recommendation is not adopted, authors must provide a clear academic justification.

Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment or evaluated by the handling editor. Additional revision rounds may be required if significant concerns remain unresolved.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance. A manuscript may be rejected if the revisions are inadequate or if substantial academic, methodological, or ethical concerns remain.

9. Final Editorial Decision and Publication

Following completion of the required review and revision stages, the Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor makes the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, language and formatting checks, typesetting, and other publication production procedures. Authors may be asked to review the final proofs to identify typographical or production errors before publication.

A Letter of Acceptance (LoA) is issued only after the manuscript has received formal final acceptance from IJETZ. Acceptance is not guaranteed by submission, completion of a review round, or payment of any applicable publication fee.

Published articles are made freely accessible online in accordance with the journal's open-access policy.

Review Timeline

IJETZ aims to conduct the editorial and peer-review process efficiently while maintaining the rigor and quality of academic evaluation.

  • Initial editorial screening: Conducted before a manuscript is assigned for external peer review.

  • External peer review: IJETZ aims to obtain both independent reviewer reports within approximately two months after external review begins.

  • Overall editorial process: The complete process, including initial screening, external review, author revisions, and final editorial evaluation, may take approximately three months or longer.

These timeframes are indicative and are not guaranteed deadlines. Actual processing times depend on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the extent of revisions required, and the time authors need to respond. Additional time may be necessary when further expert assessment or additional revision rounds are required.

Editorial Independence and Publication Ethics

IJETZ is committed to fairness, confidentiality, impartiality, and academic integrity throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and refrain from participating in assessments where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations and to treat all submissions confidentially.

Concerns involving plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other potential research misconduct are handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy.

Any applicable Article Processing Charge (APC) is administered separately from editorial evaluation. Payment does not influence reviewer recommendations, editorial decisions, or the final publication outcome. IJETZ does not offer paid fast-track review or guaranteed acceptance in exchange for payment.

Through this policy, IJETZ seeks to ensure that every manuscript considered for publication receives a fair, independent, confidential, and academically rigorous evaluation.