Peer Review Process — Education Specialist (ES)

Double-blind review • IEEE style • OJS-based workflow

Education Specialist (ES) employs a double-blind peer-review workflow to ensure objective, constructive, and timely evaluation of manuscripts. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process. All submissions must conform to the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and IEEE citation style.

• Editor-in-Chief (EiC): Oversees editorial policy; adjudicates complex/borderline cases; handles appeals.
• Associate/Handling Editor (AE): Manages each file; selects conflict-free reviewers; synthesizes reports; communicates decisions.
• Reviewers: Provide double-blind, unbiased, actionable assessments; declare conflicts; keep confidentiality; meet timelines.
• Authors: Ensure originality, ethics compliance, transparent/reproducible methods, and responsive revisions; keep manuscripts anonymized.

1. Submission (Author → OJS): Upload a Blinded Manuscript (IEEE; no identifiers), a Title Page (authors, affiliations, contact, funding, COI), and optional cover letter (novelty, scope fit, suggested reviewers with institutional emails). Preprints allowed if anonymity preserved.
2. Technical & Policy Check (Editorial Office): File integrity, formatting, language, scope fit, ethics, similarity. Clear mismatches may be desk-rejected.
3. Desk Evaluation (AE/EiC): Contribution, methods, ethics, clarity. Outcomes: desk reject, return for fix, or external review.
4. Reviewer Assignment (AE): Two (or more) experts with topic/method fit; no COI. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but not guaranteed.
5. Double-Blind Review (Reviewers): Structured major/minor comments and overall recommendation; article types: Original, Review, Short Communication.
6. Editorial Synthesis & Decision (AE + EiC): Consolidated decision letter with anonymized reports (see Section 3).
7. Revision Cycle(s): Authors provide tracked-changes + point-by-point response mapping comments to edits (page/section/line). Major revisions typically re-reviewed.
8. Final Acceptance: Granted when scholarly and ethical criteria are fully met; proceed to production.
9. Production: Copyediting (incl. IEEE checks), typesetting, author proofs, DOI assignment, online publication.

• Accept — ready for production or needs minor editorial polish.
• Minor Revision — limited, well-scoped changes; one verification round typical.
• Major Revision — substantial methodological/analytical/structural changes; re-review expected.
• Reject — out of scope or below threshold; resubmission not encouraged unless invited.

• Authors: Remove names, affiliations, acknowledgments, identifying citations; scrub file metadata; avoid self-identifying wording.
• Reviewers: Do not attempt to identify authors; avoid content that compromises anonymity; communicate only via OJS.

• COI Disclosure: Editors/Reviewers must decline if conflicts exist (recent co-authorship, shared grants, departmental ties, financial/competitive interests).
• Integrity Checks: Screening for plagiarism, redundant publication, image/data manipulation, and ethical non-compliance.
• Human Participants/Animals: Provide ethics approval (when required), informed consent/assent, and data-protection measures.
• Data Transparency: Include a Data Availability Statement with repository links when permissible.

Manuscripts are checked for IEEE in-text citations ([1], [2], [3]–[5]) and a numbered reference list with full metadata and DOIs/URLs where available. Non-conforming submissions may be returned during screening or revision.

• Scope: Appeals may address factual error, procedural irregularity, or evidence of bias.
• Procedure: Submit a reasoned appeal via OJS to the EiC within 14 days of decision; provide supporting evidence. The EiC may commission an independent review or uphold the decision.
• Outcome: The EiC’s decision on appeals is final.

1. Upload both clean and tracked-changes versions.
2. Provide a structured point-by-point response quoting each reviewer/editor comment and mapping edits to page/section/line.
3. If suggestions are not adopted, justify with scholarly, methodological, or ethical reasons.

• Corrections: Substantive errors may lead to a correction notice.
• Retractions: Proven misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, fabrication) may lead to retraction in line with best practice.
• Updates: Addenda or editor’s notes may be issued where clarifications are warranted.

Submit → Technical Check → Desk Evaluation → External Review → Editorial Decision
       ↳ (Fix & Resubmit)       ↳ (Desk Reject)       ↳ (Major/Minor Rev.) → Revision → Re-review (if needed)
                                                                                       ↓
                                                                                Final Acceptance → Production → Publication