Peer Review Process

Overview.

Classroom Experiences uses a double-blind peer review model to ensure fair, evidence-based evaluation of manuscripts. Author identities are hidden from reviewers, and reviewer identities are hidden from authors. Editorial decisions are based on methodological soundness, ethical compliance for research in educational settings, practical value for classroom practice, and overall contribution to the field.

Workflow (End-to-End)

1) Submission and Editorial Screening

Every new submission receives an initial desk review by an editor. At this stage we check: (a) fit with the journal’s aims and scope (classroom action research); (b) originality and similarity; (c) ethical readiness (consent/assent, privacy for minors, mitigation of teacher-researcher dual roles); (d) clarity of the action-research design (plan–act–observe–reflect); and (e) minimum presentation quality. Manuscripts that are clearly out of scope or have fundamental issues may be desk-rejected with a brief explanation.

2) Assignment to a Handling Editor

Submissions that pass screening are assigned to a Handling Editor with expertise in the relevant area (subject domain, assessment, methodology). If any conflict of interest exists (e.g., close institutional ties, recent collaboration), the editor recuses and the manuscript is reassigned.

3) Reviewer Selection and Invitations

The Handling Editor invites at least two qualified reviewers. Reviewers confirm the absence of conflicts of interest and agree to maintain confidentiality. If reviews diverge substantially, a third review or a focused methods/statistical consultation may be requested.

4) Double-Blind Review

Reviewers provide constructive, evidence-based feedback that addresses both research quality and classroom usefulness. Typical focus areas include:

• Action-research coherence: clarity of cycles, rationale for the intervention, documentation of iteration and reflection.
• Ethical safeguards: consent/assent procedures, parental/guardian permissions for minors, anonymization, and mitigation of teacher–researcher role conflicts (e.g., independent grading or blinded assessment).
• Methods and instruments: appropriateness of measures (rubrics, observations, formative assessments), timing, reliability/validity where relevant.
• Analysis and reporting: suitability of analytic approach (quantitative/qualitative/mixed methods), transparency, alignment of claims with evidence, honest limitations.
• Practical significance: usefulness for teachers, transferability to similar classrooms, and attention to equity and inclusion.

5) First Decision

After considering the reviews, the Handling Editor issues one of the following decisions:

• Accept (rare at first round),
• Minor Revision (clarifications or small improvements),
• Major Revision (substantive methodological, ethical, or reporting changes),
• Reject (fundamental scope, ethics, or design concerns that cannot be remedied).

6) Author Revision

For revisions, authors submit a Response to Reviewers that addresses each comment point-by-point and highlights changes in the manuscript. Any modification affecting participant protections or data handling must be described transparently.

7) Re-Review (as needed)

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers to confirm that concerns have been resolved, or assessed by the editor if changes are limited.

8) Final Decision and Production

On acceptance, the manuscript moves to copyediting and typesetting. Authors review proof files for typographical and formatting corrections (not for new content). The version of record is then published and preserved in long-term archives.

Anonymity and Confidentiality

The process is double-blind from start to finish. Authors should remove identifying details from the manuscript (and, where necessary, place school or class identifiers in a separate file). Reviewers must not share or use manuscript content for personal advantage.

Expected Timelines

• Desk review: 1–2 weeks
• External review (each round): 2–4 weeks
• Author revision: 2–4 weeks (Minor) or 4–6 weeks (Major)
  Actual times may vary with study complexity and reviewer availability; editors will communicate promptly about any delay.

Ethics and Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any relationship that could reasonably call their impartiality into question (recent co-authorship, same unit, personal ties, financial interests, or evaluative roles at the study site). When in doubt, disclose; the journal will reassign as needed. Reviewers should report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data/image manipulation, citation padding, or participant-protection concerns in the “Confidential to Editor” section of the review form.

Assessment Standards

Beyond methodological rigor, reviewers and editors consider:

• Pedagogical relevance: the intervention addresses a real instructional need.
• Transparency of action cycles: clear plan–act–observe–reflect stages.
• Safety and fairness: no coercion; non-participants are not disadvantaged; minors are protected.
• Transferability: conditions for adapting the approach are described (resources, time, constraints).
• Integrity of claims: findings and limitations are reported honestly; null or mixed results are welcome when informative.

Appeals

Authors may appeal decisions by submitting a reasoned letter addressing the editor’s and reviewers’ concerns. The Editor-in-Chief may seek an independent assessment. Appeals decisions are final.

Preprints, Data, and Supplementary Materials

Preprints are accepted; authors should disclose the preprint DOI/URL at submission and update it with the published citation upon acceptance. We encourage sharing de-identified instruments and materials (rubrics, observation forms, lesson artifacts) and, where ethical and lawful, de-identified data. If sharing is restricted to protect participants, authors should explain the constraint and, where feasible, offer controlled access.

Post-Publication Concerns

Substantive issues raised after publication (major errors, ethics questions, undisclosed overlap) are investigated in a documented manner. Outcomes may include a clarification, Erratum/Corrigendum, Expression of Concern, or Retraction, depending on the evidence and severity. Actions are proportionate and consistent with best practices in publication ethics.

See also: Author Guidelines • AI Policy • Publication Ethics