Review Process

Peer-Review Process for Authors

Pedagogical Perspective implements a rigorous double-blind peer review process, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation to promote objectivity and academic integrity. Each submitted manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field, alongside editorial oversight.

The process begins with a preliminary check conducted by the editor-in-chief to determine the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, adherence to ethical publishing standards, language quality, and overall academic merit. At this stage, the manuscript is also subjected to a plagiarism screening using iThenticate software. Manuscripts with a similarity index above 20%, excluding references and quoted material, are automatically rejected without being sent for peer review.

If the manuscript passes this initial screening, it is assigned to a section editor who manages the external peer review process. Manuscripts that lack scientific originality or relevance may be declined before reaching reviewers. Eligible manuscripts are then reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject area.

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the section editor makes a recommendation to the editor-in-chief, who makes the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection. This multi-layered review process ensures that all content published in Pedagogical Perspective meets high academic and ethical standards.

Appeals and Complaints

The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines concerning appeals and complaints related to the peer review process. Appeals against editorial decisions are accepted. However, authors are required to provide strong evidence, additional information, and data in their appeal letters.

Authors may send their appeal letters to info@pedagogoicalperspective.com. It is recommended that appeal letters include (if applicable):

  • Reasons for the appeal,
  • Details of any technical errors,
  • Causes of disagreements or disputes,
  • Evidence regarding conflicts of interest,
  • Additional or new references, evidence, information, and data.

Editors will respond to appeals within two months. They may reject or accept the manuscript, request revisions, or initiate an additional review process. All decisions regarding appeals are final.

Manuscript Withdrawal

Manuscripts that have entered the peer review process cannot be withdrawn. However, if the peer review process is delayed for more than six months, authors have the right to withdraw their manuscripts. The corresponding author may request withdrawal by sending an email to info@pedagogoicalperspective.com.

Peer-Review Process for Editors and Reviewers

Transparency

  • PedPer's authors, editor, and section editor value transparency in their communications. But the editor or section editor must keep the authors' identity private in correspondence with the reviewers. Moreover, the reports sent to the authors do not include the identities of the reviewers.
  • If a reviewer thinks that the manuscript assigned to her/him contains any problem related to research ethics or the data used in the study, or she/he believes that there is a conflict of interest between her/him and the author(s), she/he has to share these issues with the editor before commencing the process of reviewing. 
  • To attain an integrated and coherent reviewing process and to contribute to the author’s academic development, the editor may ask the reviewers to read each other’s reports and then comment on the report she/he read. In this scenario, it is necessary to maintain the anonymity of the reviewers' names and identities. 

Technical Check (by the editorial office):

  • Verification of formatting requirements
  • Checking the completeness of all necessary information
  • Review of files, forms, documents, and declarations

Preliminary Review by the Editor-in-Chief:
The manuscript is assessed for:

  • Alignment with the journal’s aim, focus, and scope
  • Publication quality
  • Language quality
  • Ethical standards compliance
  • Conflict of interest considerations

The editor-in-chief may reject the manuscript or forward it to the section editors.

Section Editors’ Review:

  • Identification of objective errors
  • Language issues (grammar, spelling, and relevant scientific terminology)
  • Research quality assessment
  • Evaluation of compliance with ethical standards

Section editors may reject the manuscript or send it for peer review.

Peer Review Process:

  • Declaration of conflicts of interest (If conflicts exist, the editorial office evaluates the situation and assigns reviewers if deemed appropriate, following COPE)
  • Detailed evaluation of the manuscript
  • Quality assessment covering research question, hypothesis, theoretical framework, relevance to scientific literature, methodology, scientific standards, language and presentation, strengths and weaknesses
  • Providing constructive feedback to improve the study or presentation of results
  • Recommendation of one of four options:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revision
    • Major Revision
    • Reject
  • Preparation of a review report including:
    • Supporting comments with literature citations where appropriate
    • Annotations on the full-text PDF
    • Provision of confidential comments to editors, not shared with authors

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

To ensure a fair, consistent, and high-quality peer review process, reviewers may consider the following questions during their evaluation of submitted manuscripts:

  1. Title
    • Does the title accurately reflect the scope and content of the study?
    • Is the length appropriate (concise yet informative)?
    • Does it avoid abbreviations or jargon that may hinder comprehension?
  1. Abstract
    • Does the abstract provide a clear and concise summary of the study?
    • For quantitative studies, are key data and findings included?
    • Does it align with the structure required by the journal (e.g., Purpose, Method, Results, Implications)?
  1. Introduction
    • Is sufficient background and context provided?
    • Is the purpose of the study clearly articulated?
    • Is the rationale for the study well justified?
    • Are research questions or hypotheses explicitly stated?
  1. Method
    • Are the data collection methods clearly described and appropriate for the research design?
    • Is the methodology described in sufficient detail to ensure reproducibility?
    • Are participant numbers sufficient, and is sampling justified?
    • Are controls (if applicable) used appropriately?
    • Are statistical analyses adequate and suitable for the research questions?
    • Is ethical approval mentioned (where applicable)?
  1. Results
    • Are findings presented clearly and logically?
    • Does all reported data correspond to the methods section?
    • Are numerical data consistent between tables, figures, and text?
    • Could you please check if there is any unnecessary repetition between the narrative and visuals?
    • Are tables and figures essential, well-labeled, and informative?
  1. Discussion
    • Are the results interpreted in relation to relevant and current literature?
    • Is the discussion appropriately balanced without over-speculation?
    • Are the limitations of the study acknowledged?
    • Are conclusions and educational implications well-articulated?
  1. Overall Evaluation
    • Is the topic relevant to the scope and aims of the journal?
    • Does the study address a current and significant issue in education?
    • Is the language, clarity, and academic style of the manuscript acceptable?
    • Are references recent, appropriate, and properly cited?
  1. Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts
    • Have the authors responded adequately to reviewer comments?
    • Are the revisions complete and satisfactory?
    • Have the authors justified any suggestions not adopted?
  1. Final Decision Process
    • Once revisions are submitted, section editors review the updated manuscript and forward their recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief.
    • The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision, which is communicated to the authors.
    • The manuscript may undergo multiple rounds of review before acceptance.
    • If accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the production team for publication preparation.