1. General Principles
The Electronic Education scientific journal is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, research integrity, transparency, and editorial independence.
All research articles submitted to the journal are evaluated through a rigorous single-blind peer review process before a final publication decision is made.
Under the single-blind peer review model:
the reviewers are provided with the names and institutional affiliations of the authors;
the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors;
reviewer reports and editorial communications are treated as confidential;
reviewers remain anonymous during and after the peer review process unless disclosure is required by law or expressly agreed by the reviewer and the Editorial Board.
The peer review process is intended to assess the scientific quality, originality, validity, relevance, methodological soundness, clarity, and contribution of submitted manuscripts.
2. Scope of Peer Review
All original research articles, review articles, methodological papers, and other scholarly manuscripts submitted for publication are subject to peer review unless otherwise explicitly stated by the journal.
Editorial materials, announcements, corrections, retractions, obituaries, and other non-research content may be evaluated directly by the Editorial Board without external peer review.
Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee its publication.
3. Initial Editorial Screening
Before being sent for external peer review, each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editor, or another authorized member of the Editorial Board.
During the initial screening, the manuscript is evaluated for:
compliance with the journal’s Aims and Scope;
relevance to the field of education, electronic education, educational technologies, pedagogy, teaching methodology, and related areas covered by the journal;
originality and academic significance;
compliance with manuscript preparation requirements;
completeness of author information and metadata;
clarity of presentation;
ethical compliance;
potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or inappropriate text reuse;
compliance with research and publication ethics;
quality of references and citation practices.
Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope, substantially below the required academic standard, incomplete, improperly prepared, or in violation of publication ethics may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.
This procedure is referred to as editorial rejection or desk rejection.
4. Selection of Reviewers
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent expert reviewers.
Reviewers are selected based on:
expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript;
academic qualifications and research experience;
publication activity in the relevant field;
ability to provide an objective and academically sound evaluation;
absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions.
Whenever reasonably possible, reviewers should have recent scholarly publications in the subject area of the submitted manuscript.
The Editorial Board seeks to maintain diversity among reviewers and, where appropriate, may invite experts from different institutions or countries.
The final selection and appointment of reviewers is the responsibility of the Editorial Board.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers where permitted by the journal. However, the Editorial Board is under no obligation to invite reviewers proposed by the authors.
Authors may also request the exclusion of particular reviewers by providing a reasonable justification. The Editorial Board will consider such requests but retains full discretion regarding reviewer selection.
5. Independence of Peer Review
Peer review must be conducted independently and objectively.
A reviewer should not accept a manuscript for review where there is an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect impartial evaluation.
Potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:
recent or ongoing collaboration with one or more authors;
direct professional competition;
personal or financial relationships;
supervisory or academic dependency;
employment at the same institution or closely connected organizational unit;
involvement in the research being evaluated;
any other relationship that may reasonably affect impartial judgment.
Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office immediately if they identify a potential conflict of interest.
The Editor-in-Chief, editors, and Editorial Board members must also declare conflicts of interest and must not participate in editorial decisions concerning manuscripts where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
6. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, evidence-based, and respectful assessments.
Reviewers should evaluate, where applicable:
Scientific relevance
Whether the manuscript addresses an important and relevant research problem.
Originality
Whether the study provides an original contribution to existing knowledge.
Research objectives
Whether the objectives and research questions are clearly formulated.
Methodology
Whether the research methods are appropriate, sufficiently described, reproducible, and scientifically justified.
Results
Whether the results are clearly presented and supported by the data.
Discussion
Whether the authors appropriately interpret the results and relate them to previous research.
Conclusions
Whether the conclusions are supported by the findings and do not extend beyond the available evidence.
Literature review
Whether relevant national and international scholarly literature has been adequately considered.
References
Whether citations are relevant, sufficiently current, and properly presented.
Structure and readability
Whether the manuscript is logically organized and written in clear academic language.
Ethical considerations
Whether the study appears to comply with applicable research and publication ethics requirements.
Reviewers should identify substantial weaknesses, unsupported conclusions, methodological limitations, ethical concerns, citation problems, and other issues that may affect the reliability or scholarly value of the manuscript.
Personal criticism of authors is unacceptable.
7. Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to the Electronic Education journal are treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not:
share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals;
disclose information about the manuscript or peer review process;
use unpublished data, arguments, ideas, or findings for personal or professional advantage;
reproduce, distribute, or publicly discuss manuscript content before publication;
contact authors directly concerning the submitted manuscript without permission from the Editorial Office.
Where consultation with another specialist is necessary, prior approval from the Editorial Office must be obtained.
Reviewers remain responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of all materials received during the peer review process.
8. Use of Artificial Intelligence During Peer Review
Because submitted manuscripts may contain confidential and unpublished information, reviewers and editors must ensure that the confidentiality of manuscripts is preserved when using digital or artificial intelligence tools.
Manuscripts, unpublished data, figures, tables, personal information, or other confidential content must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or other third-party services where confidentiality, intellectual property rights, or data protection cannot be guaranteed.
Artificial intelligence tools must not replace the professional scientific judgment of reviewers or editors.
The reviewer remains fully responsible for the content, accuracy, fairness, and integrity of the submitted review report.
9. Reviewer Recommendations
After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers normally provide one of the following recommendations:
Accept without revision
The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
Minor revision
The manuscript may be suitable for publication after relatively limited corrections or clarifications.
Major revision
Significant amendments are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
Reject and resubmit
The manuscript requires substantial redevelopment and may be considered as a new submission after major revision.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial requirements and should not be published.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory.
The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized handling editor.
10. Conflicting Reviewer Reports
If two reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the Editor may:
evaluate the reports and make an editorial decision based on the available evidence;
request clarification from one or both reviewers;
invite an additional independent reviewer;
refer the manuscript to another member of the Editorial Board with relevant expertise.
Where necessary, a third reviewer may be appointed.
The number of positive or negative recommendations alone does not automatically determine the editorial decision. The quality, reasoning, and scientific substance of reviewer comments are taken into account.
11. Revision of Manuscripts
When revision is requested, the authors receive the relevant reviewer comments and editorial instructions without disclosure of reviewer identities.
Authors are expected to:
carefully address all reviewer comments;
clearly identify changes made to the manuscript;
provide a structured response to each reviewer comment;
explain respectfully where a suggested change has not been made;
submit the revised manuscript within the period specified by the Editorial Office.
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly in cases of major revision.
Submitting a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.
The journal may require more than one round of revision where necessary to ensure scientific quality.
12. Editorial Decision
Following peer review and, where applicable, revision, the Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor makes the final publication decision.
Possible final decisions include:
Accepted for publication;
Revision required;
Rejected.
Editorial decisions are based on:
reviewer reports;
scientific quality;
originality;
methodological reliability;
relevance to the journal’s scope;
ethical compliance;
clarity and academic quality of presentation;
overall contribution to the field.
The Editor-in-Chief has ultimate responsibility for determining whether a manuscript is accepted for publication.
Commercial, institutional, political, personal, or other non-academic considerations must not influence editorial decisions.
13. Editorial Board Members as Authors
Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board, journal staff, or individuals closely connected with the journal are subject to the same editorial and peer review standards as other submissions.
Such manuscripts must be handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the author.
The author who is affiliated with the journal must not participate in:
reviewer selection;
peer review;
editorial discussion;
the final publication decision concerning their own manuscript.
This separation is maintained to protect editorial independence and prevent preferential treatment.
14. Ethical Concerns Identified During Peer Review
If a reviewer identifies possible:
plagiarism;
duplicate or redundant publication;
fabricated or falsified data;
inappropriate image manipulation;
unethical research;
citation manipulation;
undisclosed conflict of interest;
authorship concerns;
other forms of research or publication misconduct,
the reviewer should confidentially notify the Editorial Office and provide relevant evidence where possible.
The Editorial Board will investigate such concerns in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics Policy and generally accepted principles of scholarly publishing ethics.
The journal may request explanations, supporting documentation, raw data, ethical approval documents, or other relevant information from the authors when necessary.
15. Citation Ethics
Reviewers must not request authors to add citations primarily for the purpose of increasing citations to:
the reviewer’s own publications;
publications of the reviewer’s colleagues;
the journal;
a particular author, institution, or research group,
unless the suggested references are genuinely relevant and academically necessary.
Editors must not pressure authors to cite the Electronic Education journal solely for the purpose of increasing journal citation indicators.
Any recommendation to add references must be based on scholarly relevance.
16. Reviewer Conduct
Review reports should be:
professional;
objective;
evidence-based;
constructive;
respectful;
sufficiently detailed to support the recommendation.
Discriminatory, offensive, threatening, defamatory, or personally disparaging comments will not be accepted.
The Editorial Board reserves the right to remove inappropriate comments from reports before communicating them to authors and may discontinue collaboration with reviewers who repeatedly fail to comply with professional standards.
17. Review Timeline
The journal seeks to conduct peer review as efficiently as possible without compromising scientific quality.
Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within the period specified in the review invitation.
If a reviewer cannot complete the assessment within the requested timeframe, they should notify the Editorial Office as soon as possible.
The duration of peer review may vary depending on:
manuscript complexity;
reviewer availability;
the number of revision rounds;
the need for additional expert review;
ethical or methodological issues requiring further investigation.
Authors will be informed of significant delays where appropriate.
18. Withdrawal During Peer Review
Authors wishing to withdraw a manuscript after submission must submit a formal withdrawal request to the Editorial Office.
The request should include:
manuscript title;
manuscript identification number, where applicable;
corresponding author’s name;
reason for withdrawal.
A manuscript should not simultaneously be submitted to another journal while it remains under consideration by the Electronic Education journal.
19. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions
Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that:
a substantial factual or methodological misunderstanding occurred;
important information was overlooked;
reviewer comments contain significant factual errors;
the editorial process was not conducted fairly.
An appeal must provide a clear academic justification and address the specific issues relevant to the decision.
Appeals based solely on disagreement with a negative decision, without supporting scientific arguments, may not be reconsidered.
The Editor-in-Chief may:
uphold the original decision;
seek an additional independent review;
assign the appeal to another editor or Editorial Board member;
reconsider the manuscript where sufficient grounds exist.
The decision following completion of the appeal procedure is normally final.
20. Complaints Concerning Peer Review
Complaints regarding reviewer conduct, conflicts of interest, procedural irregularities, confidentiality, discrimination, or other aspects of the peer review process may be submitted to the Editorial Office.
Complaints will be considered independently and confidentially.
Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it should be considered by another senior member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest in the matter.
21. Post-Publication Issues
Peer review does not end the journal’s responsibility for the integrity of published research.
If substantial errors, ethical violations, unreliable findings, plagiarism, data manipulation, or other serious concerns are identified after publication, the journal may initiate an investigation.
Depending on the outcome, the journal may publish:
a correction;
an editorial notice;
an expression of concern;
a retraction;
another appropriate post-publication notice.
Post-publication actions will be taken in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics Policy and internationally recognized scholarly publishing standards.
22. Reviewer Recognition
The journal recognizes peer review as an important contribution to scholarly communication.
Reviewer identities remain confidential under the single-blind review model.
The journal may acknowledge reviewers collectively, provided that such recognition does not reveal which reviewer evaluated a particular manuscript.
Individual reviewer information will not be disclosed without the reviewer’s consent.
23. Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are based exclusively on academic merit, scientific validity, relevance, originality, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal.
Decisions must not be influenced by:
nationality;
ethnicity;
gender;
religious or political views;
institutional affiliation;
personal relationships;
commercial interests;
financial considerations;
professional status of the authors.
The publisher, sponsoring organization, affiliated institution, or other external party must not interfere with individual editorial decisions.
24. Responsibility for the Peer Review Process
The Editor-in-Chief of Electronic Education has overall responsibility for maintaining the quality, integrity, independence, and proper implementation of the peer review process.
The Editorial Board periodically reviews this policy and may revise it to reflect developments in international scholarly publishing standards and research ethics.
Peer Review Model at a Glance
Peer review type: Single-blind peer review
Reviewer identity visible to authors: No
Author identity visible to reviewers: Yes
Minimum number of external reviewers: Normally two
Additional reviewer: May be appointed where reviewer opinions differ substantially
Final decision: Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor
Conflict of interest declaration: Required
Reviewer confidentiality: Required
Author appeal procedure: Available
Ethics and misconduct review: Applicable throughout the editorial process
Electronic Education
ISSN: 2181-1199