Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process at IJES

Upholding Integrity, Ensuring Quality

The IIUM Journal of Educational Studies (IJES) employs a rigorous peer review system to maintain the highest standards of academic excellence, ethics, and credibility. Our process aligns with COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and ensures impartiality, transparency, and constructive feedback.

1. Review Type: Double-Blind

All submissions undergo double-blind peer review:

Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
Manuscripts are judged solely on academic merit, originality, and relevance.

2. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are chosen based on:

Expertise: Subject-matter specialists with relevant qualifications.
Experience: Proven publication record and peer review background.
Impartiality: Strict avoidance of conflicts of interest.
Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent reviewers; a third reviewer is invited if evaluations conflict.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate submissions on:

Relevance to IJES’s scope
Originality and scholarly contribution
Methodological rigor and data analysis
Theoretical grounding and literature coverage
Clarity of argument and presentation quality

4. The Review Workflow

Stage	Timeline	Key Actions
Initial Screening	1–2 weeks	Editorial check for scope, ethics, and formatting compliance.
Reviewer Assignment	1–2 weeks	Invitation to experts; manuscript sent upon acceptance.
Peer Review	3–4 weeks	Reviewers submit structured feedback and recommendations.
Editorial Decision	1–2 weeks	Editor-in-Chief evaluates reviews and communicates a decision to the author.
Author Revision	2–4 weeks	Authors address feedback; revisions may undergo re-review.
Final Decision	1–2 weeks	Editor-in-Chief approves publication based on revised quality and significance.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

Accept (no changes)
Revisions Required (minor/major)
Resubmit for Review (after significant edits)
Resubmit Elsewhere (if out of scope)
Decline (with rationale)

6. Outcome & Transparency

Decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief, considering reviewer feedback, revision quality, and field relevance.
Authors receive detailed comments to support improvement, regardless of outcome.
Typical timeline: 6–10 weeks (subject to reviewer availability/revision depth).