Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

Ajari: Journal of Educational Science applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to maintain the scientific quality, originality, relevance, objectivity, and integrity of every published article.

Under this review model, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, while the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. Authors and reviewers must not attempt to identify, contact, or influence one another during the editorial process.

Every manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent peer reviewers who have expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject, research methodology, and disciplinary context. Reviewer recommendations support the editorial decision but do not replace the independent judgment of the editor.

Anonymity Requirements

To protect the integrity of the double-blind review process, authors must submit an anonymized manuscript that does not disclose their identities. Author information must be provided separately through the journal's online submission system or in a separate title page when requested.

Principles of Peer Review

The double-blind peer review process is conducted according to the following principles:

Editorial and Double-Blind Review Workflow

Every submitted manuscript proceeds through the following editorial stages:

Submission and Administrative Check

The editorial office checks the completeness of the submission, manuscript structure, supporting files, declarations, reference style, and compliance with the author guidelines. The editorial office also ensures that the manuscript has been properly anonymized before it is forwarded to reviewers.

Initial Editorial Screening

The editor-in-chief or assigned section editor conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, scholarly contribution, methodological quality, ethical compliance, academic presentation, and similarity screening results.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scientific contribution, contain serious methodological weaknesses, fail to meet ethical requirements, or contain unacceptable similarity may be rejected without external peer review.

Selection of Independent Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewer selection is based on subject expertise, methodological competence, research experience, scholarly publication record, institutional diversity, availability, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

• Reviewers must possess expertise relevant to the manuscript's topic and methodology.
• Reviewers should have a credible scholarly publication record in the relevant field.
• Reviewers must be independent from the authors and their institutions.
• Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest.
• Reviewers must be able to complete the review within the specified period.

Double-Blind External Review

Reviewers independently evaluate the anonymized manuscript without receiving information about the authors' names, affiliations, email addresses, or academic identities. Authors do not receive information that identifies the reviewers.

Each reviewer submits a structured assessment, detailed comments, recommendations for improvement, confidential comments to the editor when necessary, and an editorial recommendation through the journal's online submission system.

Editorial Evaluation of Review Reports

The assigned editor evaluates the substance, clarity, relevance, and consistency of the review reports. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not automatically determine it. When the reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may appoint an additional independent reviewer.

Author Revision and Response

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised anonymized manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each comment from the reviewers and editors has been addressed. Authors who do not adopt a recommendation must provide a clear scientific justification.

Further Review

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers through the same double-blind process. Manuscripts requiring major changes may undergo more than one review round. Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the assigned editor when further external assessment is not required.

Final Editorial Decision

The editor-in-chief makes the final decision after considering the manuscript's scientific quality, reviewer reports, author responses, revisions, ethical compliance, originality, and relevance to the journal. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout editing, author proofreading, and publication.

Review Criteria

Peer reviewers evaluate manuscripts using substantive academic criteria.

Alignment with the Journal's Scope

Reviewers assess whether each manuscript makes a clear scholarly contribution to one or more of the journal's focus areas:

• Educational Studies and Curriculum
• Educational Management and Policy
• Educational Technology and Innovation
• Educational Research, Assessment, and Evaluation

Editorial Decision Categories

Following editorial and double-blind peer review evaluation, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

Review and Decision Timeline

The journal applies the following target periods to support a timely and responsible editorial process:

The actual processing time may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the quality of revisions, and the number of review rounds required.

Confidentiality, Ethics, and Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must protect the confidentiality and anonymity of all submitted materials. They must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, cite, or use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers must immediately disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and decline the review when their independence may be compromised. Editors must replace reviewers whose relationships with the authors, institutions, or subject matter may affect impartiality.

The journal follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers in maintaining reviewer confidentiality, objectivity, independence, and professional conduct.

Documentation and Editorial Accountability

Reviewer assignments, review reports, editorial decisions, anonymized manuscripts, revised manuscripts, author response letters, and relevant correspondence are documented through the journal's online submission system. These records support editorial accountability, quality assurance, internal evaluation, and verification of the journal's double-blind peer review practices.

All manuscripts submitted to Ajari: Journal of Educational Science undergo a double-blind peer review process and are evaluated according to scientific merit, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and contribution to educational scholarship. Submission does not guarantee acceptance or publication.