Logo

Peer Review Process

KOLEKTIF: Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning applies a double-blind peer-review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts.

Under the double-blind review system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first examined by the editorial team to determine whether they:

  • Fit the journal's aims and scope.
  • Meet the basic requirements of the Author Guidelines.
  • Demonstrate sufficient originality and scholarly relevance.
  • Comply with the journal's publication ethics requirements.
  • Meet the minimum standards of academic writing and presentation.

The editor may reject a manuscript at this stage if it does not meet the journal's requirements or is clearly unsuitable for publication.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, and suitability for the manuscript's subject area.

The editorial team seeks to avoid conflicts of interest when assigning reviewers.

3. Double-Blind Review

The journal uses a double-blind review process.

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts do not contain identifying information that could reveal their identities to reviewers.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors or disclose confidential manuscript information.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
  • Originality and novelty.
  • Significance of the research problem.
  • Adequacy of the literature review.
  • Appropriateness of the research methodology.
  • Quality and clarity of data presentation.
  • Validity of the findings and interpretation.
  • Contribution to educational knowledge and practice.
  • Quality of academic writing.
  • Ethical compliance and proper referencing.

5. Review Duration

The journal's standard review period is approximately one to two weeks after reviewer assignment, subject to reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

The overall editorial process is estimated to take approximately eight weeks from submission to a publication-ready decision. This is an estimate rather than a guaranteed processing time.

The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, revision requirements, editorial workload, and production schedules.

6. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept.
  • Minor Revision.
  • Major Revision.
  • Reject.

The editor may request additional review when necessary.

The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized editor.

7. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit:

  1. A revised manuscript.
  2. A point-by-point response to reviewers' comments.
  3. A clear explanation of any reviewer suggestions that were not adopted.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified deadline may result in withdrawal or closure of the submission.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential.

Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished material for personal research or professional advantage.

9. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant procedural error or misunderstanding may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.

Appeals must identify the specific grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting evidence.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. The journal's editorial decision following an appeal is final.

10. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor is responsible for evaluating the review reports and making the final editorial decision.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance based solely on favorable reviewer recommendations.