Peer Review Process

The peer review of articles is a cornerstone of the publication process, which improves the publishing quality of the Journal of Educational Sciences - Qatar University journal. Peer review is designed to select valid research of significant impact.

As a double-blind peer reviewed journal, the Journal of Educational Sciences relies on expert comments of reviewers to ensure the quality of the papers we publish. Feedback from reviewers is conveyed to authors which frequently results in manuscripts being revised by the author and refined in order to reach the highest publishing quality.

• Initial evaluation stage

• All new submissions undergo an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure that the required documents are complete and comply with research ethics, journal policies, and the author’s guidelines. If any documents are missing or specific requirements are not met, the researcher is notified and asked to make the necessary amendments and/or submit the required additional documents within a maximum of two weeks. If the researcher fails to comply or respond within the given timeline, the submission is rejected.

  Submissions that pass the initial screening are then evaluated by the editorial committee members and discussed with the Editor-in-Chief to decide whether the paper will proceed to peer review or be rejected. Authors are typically notified of the outcome of the initial review within one month from the submission date.

• Peer review stage

• According to our policy, each article is evaluated by two independent reviewers. Reviewers can either accept the article without modifications, accept it with minor modifications, recommend substantial revisions, or reject it.

  While the reviewers are selected by the editorial committee, the authors’ identities are not disclosed to the reviewers. This double-blind review process ensures scholarly evaluation while fostering critical and honest feedback.

  Reviewers are asked to provide anonymous comments for the authors and have the option to submit confidential comments to the editor. If the reviewers’ reports contradict each other or if a report is significantly delayed, an additional expert opinion may be sought. Depending on reviewer availability, the peer review process typically takes around two months.

  Review decisions often require authors to submit a revised version of their article based on reviewer comments and feedback. Authors are generally given one to two weeks to make the necessary changes. However, if substantial amendments are required, or if the author requests an extension due to personal circumstances, an extended timeframe of up to one and a half months may be granted.

  The Editor-in-Chief and the journal’s Editorial Committee issue the final recommendation regarding the acceptance or rejection of a paper, based on the reviewers’ recommendations and evaluations. Authors are notified of the final decision within a maximum of six months from the submission date.

• Reviewer’s role

• Reviewing an article written by a fellow researcher is a time-intensive responsibility. The Journal of Educational Sciences - Qatar University’s Editorial Board, authors and audiences deeply appreciate the referees’ willingness to undertake this responsibility and their dedication to the peer-review process.

  The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process that is both rapid and fair, ensuring the publication of high-quality articles. To achieve this, the journal relies on reviewers who can provide insightful and constructive comments on submitted articles within a timeline of one to one and a half months at most.

  Maintaining the Journal of Educational Sciences - Qatar University as a high-quality scientific journal depends on the reviewers’ ability to remain objective and fair in their evaluations.

• How the reviewers are selected

• The selection of reviewers is a critical part of the publication process. Reviewers are chosen based on several criteria, including their expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and the editorial board’s previous experience with them.

  Reviewers are required to evaluate the research quality of the paper, analyze and assess the validity of its assumptions, and determine the significance of the work to the field, all while using the journal’s peer-review form.

• Using the online review system

• The peer review and editorial processes are facilitated through Open Journal Systems (OJS), an online editorial system. The system sends the reviewer an email notification with a review request, initiated by the Editor-in-Chief. The online system will also notify about delays in the reviewing stage and confirm a successful review submission. The email notifications contain stepwise instructions about the actions needed at each stage along with the link to the respective manuscript (accessible only after login).

  The Public Knowledge Project provides a free online course on how to become a Reviewer including guidance on the use of the OJS system. If you have additional questions or concerns, please contact the editorial team.

  Note: Accepted articles go through copyediting and typesetting by QU Press prior to publication.

• Writing the review report

• The primary purpose of reviewing is to provide us the information needed to reach a decision. The review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable.

  A negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication.

  Review reports are required to provide in-depth feedback on the following four points and as per the journal’s review form:

  1. Scholarly quality: quality and depth of research; originality of the contribution including presence of new and creative thought; and validity and reliability of the argument.

  2. Literary quality: writing style and structure, including paragraphing, language, syntax, and flow.

  3. Use of resources: including over/under-referencing, sources quality, relationship of sources to the text.

  4. Benefit to the readers and the advancement of the field.

• Promptness:

• Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

• Confidentiality:

• Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

• Standards of Objectivity:

• Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

• Acknowledgement of Sources:

• Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

• Conflict of interest:

• Reviewers should refuse the invitation to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Reviewers who feel not able to provide an objective judgement on the research reported in a manuscript should refuse to review the manuscript.

• Handling ethical concerns

• Sometimes reviewers may discover serious ethical breaches during the review such as noticing that all or part of the paper has been previously published by the same or other authors. Reviewers might also find text or ideas that may be copied without permission or appropriate attribution from others works.

  In such cases of suspected duplicative publication or plagiarism, reviewers should obtain and carefully examine copies of the original documents to confirm and inform the initial impression to the journal.

  QU Press follows the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the COPE Flowcharts for Resolving Cases of Suspected Misconduct.