Peer Review Policy
Educational Methods and Psychometrics (EMP) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic rigor and integrity. To ensure fairness, objectivity, and the quality of published research, the journal employs a double-blind peer review process. This means that both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential throughout the entire review process. Our peer review policy ensures that each manuscript is evaluated solely on its academic merit, without bias regarding the authors' affiliations, reputation, or personal characteristics. Our peer review policy and process ensures that the review of all manuscripts submitted to EMP is thorough, objective, and fair. Our aim is to maintain the highest standards of academic excellence and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
Objectives of Peer Review
1. Quality Assurance: To assess the accuracy, originality, clarity, and significance of the research presented in each manuscript.
2. Constructive Feedback: To provide authors with detailed, actionable feedback to improve the quality and presentation of their work.
3. Objectivity: To ensure that manuscripts are evaluated without bias or personal influence.
4. Confidentiality: To protect the integrity of the review process by maintaining the anonymity of both authors and reviewers.
Peer Review Process
1. Submission and Initial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript is assigned to an editorial team member who conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript fits within the journal’s scope and adheres to its formatting and ethical guidelines. Manuscripts that pass this initial screening are forwarded to subject-matter experts for peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s criteria at this stage are returned to the authors with appropriate feedback.
2. Selection of Reviewers
The editorial team assigns at least two reviewers to each manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant academic field. Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before accepting the review assignment. If a conflict is identified, another reviewer is selected.
3. Double-Blind Review
In a double-blind review process, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed. Authors are instructed to prepare their manuscripts in a way that ensures anonymity (e.g., removing identifying details from the manuscript).
- Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
- Originality: Is the research novel and does it contribute new knowledge to the field?
- Methodology: Are the research methods appropriate and robust?
- Clarity: Is the writing clear, concise, and well-organized?
- Evidence: Are the conclusions supported by data and analysis?
- Relevance: Does the research address an important question or gap in the field?
- Ethical Standards: Does the manuscript adhere to ethical research standards (e.g., human subject protection, conflict of interest disclosure)?
4. Reviewer Reports
- Reviewers submit their evaluation, including a recommendation to either:
- Accept without revision,
- Accept with minor revisions,
- Accept with major revisions,
- Reject.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback for improving the manuscript, regardless of their recommendation. The editorial team consolidates the feedback and communicates it to the authors.
5. Editorial Decision
- Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editorial team makes a decision on the manuscript. In the case of conflicting reviews, the editor may consult additional reviewers or make an independent judgment.
- The possible outcomes include:
- Accepted: The manuscript is accepted for publication, with or without minor revisions.
- Revisions Required: The manuscript requires significant changes. The revised version will undergo additional review.
- Rejected: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.
6. Resubmission and Further Review
- If revisions are requested, the authors can revise the manuscript and resubmit it for further consideration.
- The resubmitted manuscript is typically sent to the same reviewers, unless otherwise determined by the editorial team.
7. Final Decision and Publication
- Once the manuscript is accepted, it undergoes final copyediting and formatting before publication.
- Authors are given the opportunity to review the proofs prior to publication to ensure accuracy.
Reviewer Guidelines
- Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the designated time frame (typically 4-6 weeks). Extensions may be granted in exceptional cases.
- Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should offer clear, concise, and constructive comments aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript with others and must not use any unpublished data or ideas presented in the manuscript for their own research.
Appeals
Authors who disagree with a rejection decision may submit an appeal to the editorial team. The appeal must include a detailed rebuttal to the reviewers' comments. The editorial team will consider the appeal and, if warranted, may send the manuscript for further review. However, appeals are granted at the discretion of the editors and must present strong justification for reconsideration.