Peer Review Process

EDUVERSA : Journal of Universal Education Studies is committed to maintaining the highest standards of quality, integrity, and originality in all published articles. To ensure rigorous evaluation, the journal employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process, where both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review period.

The step-by-step peer review process for submitted manuscripts is detailed below:

1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Evaluation)

  • Upon submission, the Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief review the manuscript to check for basic compliance with the journal's scope, author guidelines, template formatting, and minimum quality standards.

  • Manuscripts that fail to meet the focus and scope, exhibit poor academic quality, or show high similarity scores based on plagiarism checks (maximum 20%) will be rejected outright or returned to the author for major revisions before entering the review stage.

2. Reviewer Assignment

  • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent peer reviewers who are experts in fields related to education, learning innovation, or educational technology.

  • Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, publication records, and absence of any conflict of interest with the authors.

3. Peer Review Evaluation

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on several key criteria:

    • Originality and Novelty: Does the research offer new insights or practical contributions to education?

    • Methodology: Are the research design, data collection, and analysis appropriate and robust?

    • Results and Discussion: Are the findings clearly presented, accurately interpreted, and supported by relevant literature?

    • Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript well-written, structured, and compliant with academic standards?

  • Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommend one of four outcomes: Accept Submission, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, or Reject.

4. Editorial Decision and Author Revision

  • Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision.

  • If revisions are required, the author is given a specific timeframe (typically 2 to 4 weeks) to revise the manuscript, address all reviewer comments point-by-point, and submit the revised file along a response letter.

5. Final Decision and Publication

  • The revised manuscript is re-evaluated by the editor or sent back to the original reviewers to ensure all feedback has been adequately addressed.

  • Once the manuscript is officially declared Accepted, it proceeds to copyediting, layout formatting, and online publication for the upcoming scheduled issue (February or August).