PEER REVIEW PROCESS

1. Overview

The Global Journal of Learning, Innovation, and Educational Research (GJLIER) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the integrity, quality, and scholarly contribution of all published manuscripts.

All submissions and reviews are managed through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, allowing full transparency and traceability of the review workflow. All data and communication in the OJS platform are managed under secure protocols to protect authors’ and reviewers’ confidentiality.

Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process to uphold objectivity, fairness, and transparency. The review process is designed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

2. Initial Manuscript Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Office to determine its suitability for peer review. The screening process includes:

• Scope alignment: Relevance to GJLIER’s aims and focus areas (learning sciences, innovation, and educational research).
• Compliance check: Verification of adherence to author guidelines, referencing style, and manuscript structure (IMRaD format).
• Language clarity: Evaluation of academic writing quality and readability.
• Ethical compliance: Plagiarism detection using iThenticate or Turnitin (maximum similarity threshold: 20%, excluding references).

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk-rejected or returned to authors for technical revision prior to review.

 

3. Assignment to Handling Editor

Papers that pass the screening stage are assigned to a Handling (Associate) Editor, who oversees the peer review process.

The Handling Editor selects at least two qualified reviewers with expertise matching the paper’s research area. Reviewer selection is based on:

• Academic background and publication record
• Absence of conflict of interest
• Reviewer performance history and response reliability

Reviewers are selected from the GJLIER Reviewer Database, which includes verified experts with documented profiles and ORCID identifiers. The editorial office tracks reviewer turnaround time to ensure efficiency and consistency in the review process

 

4. Double-Blind Peer Review
5. GJLIER employs a double-blind review system to maintain impartiality.

Review Process:

• Each paper is independently reviewed by two to three experts in the relevant discipline.
• In cases of conflicting recommendations, a third reviewer or the Editor-in-Chief may be consulted for a final decision.
• Reviewers provide a comprehensive evaluation report that includes both qualitative comments and quantitative assessments.

Reviewers are selected among scholars with at least a doctoral degree and a proven record of publications in Scopus- or WoS-indexed journals.

 

1. Evaluation Focus

• Originality and Contribution – The degree of novelty and advancement of educational theory or practice.
• Scientific and Methodological Rigor – Appropriateness and robustness of the research design, data analysis, and interpretation.
• Significance and Relevance – Theoretical, practical, or policy relevance of findings to education and learning innovation.
• Organization and Clarity – Logical flow, structure, and academic writing quality.
• Ethical Standards – Compliance with ethical research practices, informed consent, and citation integrity.
• Manuscripts involving human participants, data, or institutions must include a statement confirming ethical approval and informed consent, in accordance with international research ethics standards.

The review period typically takes 4–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and complexity of the manuscript.

GJLIER employs a standardized reviewer evaluation form that includes both narrative comments and quantitative scores (0–100) for originality, rigor, significance, and clarity

 

5. Editorial Decision

After receiving all review reports, the Handling Editor synthesizes the reviewers’ comments and submits a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

Decision Type	Description
Accept as is	Manuscript meets all scholarly and ethical standards.
Minor Revision	Small corrections or clarifications needed; resubmission within 2 weeks.
Major Revision	Significant revisions required; resubmission within 4–6 weeks.
Reject	Manuscript does not meet journal standards or outside scope.
Reject and Resubmit	Manuscript requires substantial improvement and may be considered as a new submission after major revision.

Authors are notified via an official Decision Letter summarizing reviewers’ comments and editorial recommendations.

 

6. Revision and Resubmission

Authors submitting revised manuscripts must provide:

• A point-by-point response document detailing how reviewer comments were addressed.
• A tracked-changes version of the revised manuscript for easy verification.

The revised version is then reviewed by the original reviewers (when appropriate) or re-evaluated internally by the Handling Editor.

Late submissions beyond the revision deadline are considered automatic withdrawals to maintain editorial order.

 

7. Final Acceptance and Production

Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage, which includes:

• Copyediting and formatting for consistency and style compliance.
• Language and technical editing for clarity and precision.
• Author proofing: Authors must approve the final version before online publication.
• Assignment of a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and placement in the “Online First” section prior to issue compilation.

After final proof approval, the paper is published under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, ensuring global accessibility and reuse compliance with DOAJ standards.

 

8. Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality

All reviewers must adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which include:

• Maintaining strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
• Declaring any conflict of interest prior to accepting a review.
• Providing constructive, evidence-based feedback to improve the manuscript.
• Refraining from using any data or ideas from the manuscript for personal research purposes.

Reviewers found violating ethical guidelines may be removed from the reviewer database and reported to their affiliated institution.

 

9. Transparency and Conflict Resolution

GJLIER maintains a transparent editorial workflow. Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit and relevance to the journal’s objectives, regardless of the author’s institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, or personal beliefs.

In the event of a dispute, ethical complaint, or alleged violation, the case will be handled by the GJLIER Editorial Ethics Committee in accordance with the Ethics in Publishing Policy. The results of dispute resolution will be documented and reported periodically to the editorial board for annual ethics audit.

 

10. Timeline Summary

Stage	Responsibility	Description	Duration
1. Initial Screening	Editor-in-Chief	Scope, format, plagiarism, ethics check	5–7 days
2. Reviewer Assignment	Handling Editor	Matching with reviewer expertise	3–5 days
3. Peer Review	Reviewers	Double-blind review (2–3 reviewers)	4–8 weeks
4. Editorial Decision	Editor-in-Chief	Consolidation of review reports	1 week
5. Revision	Authors	Address comments and resubmit	2–6 weeks
6. Final Review	Handling Editor	Verification of revision quality	1 week
7. Production & Publication	Editorial Office	Copyediting, proofing, DOI registration	2 weeks

 

The average total duration from initial submission to publication is approximately 8–12 weeks.

 

11. Publisher Alignment Statement

The Global Journal of Learning, Innovation, and Educational Research (GJLIER) peer review process adheres to international publishing standards. GJLIER also aligns with COPE Core Practices and Elsevier’s Research Data Guidelines to ensure data transparency, replicability, and long-term accessibility.