Review Process

Journal of Science and Science Education (JoSSEd) is committed to ensuring the quality, originality, scientific validity, and integrity of all published articles through a rigorous, fair, independent, and transparent peer-review process. The journal adopts a single-blind peer-review system, in which reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, while the identities of reviewers remain confidential and are not disclosed to the authors.

The peer-review process is designed to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated objectively based on scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, relevance to the journal's focus and scope, and their contributions to the advancement of science and science education. The process is informed by the ethical principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or an assigned editor before being considered for external peer review.

The initial screening evaluates the following aspects:

1. Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.
2. Compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines and manuscript template.
3. Originality, novelty, and scientific contribution.
4. Clarity of the research objectives and appropriateness of the methodology.
5. Completeness of manuscript structure and quality of academic writing.
6. Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity requirements.
7. Results of plagiarism and similarity screening.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned for technical corrections or rejected without external review (desk rejection). Manuscripts that meet the initial editorial standards proceed to the peer-review stage.

2. Single-Blind Peer Review

JoSSEd applies a single-blind peer-review system to promote fairness, objectivity, and independent scholarly evaluation. Under this system, reviewers have access to the authors' names and institutional affiliations, while the identities of reviewers remain confidential and are not disclosed to the authors.

Each manuscript that successfully passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who possess relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Additional reviewers may be appointed when necessary to obtain specialized assessments or resolve substantially conflicting recommendations.

Authors are not required to anonymize their names and affiliations solely for peer review. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, provide impartial evaluations, and avoid disclosing their identities through comments or review documents.

The editorial team is responsible for ensuring that the review process is conducted professionally and in accordance with the journal's ethical standards. Reviewer recommendations are considered advisory, while final editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.

3. Reviewer Selection and Appointment

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, research experience, scholarly publication record, independence, and ability to provide objective evaluations.

The main criteria for reviewer selection include:

• Relevant expertise in the manuscript's research field.
• Experience in scientific research and academic publication.
• Ability to provide constructive and evidence-based feedback.
• Absence of significant conflicts of interest.
• Availability to complete the review within the requested period.
• Commitment to confidentiality and publication ethics.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation. Editors should avoid appointing reviewers whose relationships with the authors or research could compromise the independence of the evaluation.

4. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, validity of findings, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal. The principal evaluation components are presented below.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Following the assessment, reviewers submit their evaluation reports and recommendations through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS). Reviewer recommendations may include:

1. Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial standards and requires no substantive revision.
2. Minor Revision: The manuscript is scientifically suitable but requires limited improvements in presentation, analysis, interpretation, or clarity.
3. Major Revision: The manuscript has potential scientific merit but requires substantial improvements before further consideration.
4. Reject Submission: The manuscript contains fundamental scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope-related deficiencies that prevent publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the final editorial decision. The editor considers the review reports, manuscript quality, and journal policies before issuing a decision.

6. Revision and Re-Review Process

Authors receiving revision requests must carefully address the comments and recommendations provided by reviewers and editors. Revised manuscripts should be accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers for further evaluation. Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the handling editor when appropriate.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. Manuscripts may undergo additional review rounds or be rejected if significant scientific or ethical concerns remain unresolved.

7. Editorial Decision and Acceptance

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor based on the reviewers' recommendations, scientific quality, methodological rigor, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may request additional evaluations, consult another qualified reviewer, or conduct further editorial assessment.

Manuscripts are accepted only when the editorial team determines that they meet the journal's standards of scientific validity, originality, methodological quality, and scholarly contribution.

8. Confidentiality and Reviewer Anonymity

Under the single-blind peer-review system, the identities of reviewers remain confidential and are not disclosed to authors. Editors and editorial staff are responsible for protecting reviewer anonymity throughout the review process.

All submitted manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share manuscript contents, unpublished findings, research data, or editorial correspondence with unauthorized parties.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal research, professional advantage, or other unauthorized purposes.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or review materials to external generative AI services without explicit editorial authorization and appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise the fairness and independence of the manuscript evaluation process.

Potential conflicts may arise from financial relationships, personal relationships, recent academic collaborations, institutional affiliations, professional competition, or other circumstances that may influence impartial judgment.

Reviewers with significant conflicts of interest must decline the review invitation. Editors with relevant conflicts must transfer editorial responsibility to another qualified editor.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit an appeal when they believe that an editorial decision involves a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or other substantial concern.

Appeals must include a clear explanation and relevant supporting evidence. The editorial team may consult an independent editor or additional reviewer when necessary.

An appeal does not automatically result in manuscript acceptance or reconsideration. The outcome will be communicated through the journal's official editorial communication channels.

11. Peer Review Process Flow

Manuscripts may be rejected during initial screening or subsequent evaluation stages. Revision and re-review may involve multiple rounds.

12. Post-Acceptance and Publication

Following acceptance, manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, and final publication checks. Authors may be requested to review proofs before publication.

Accepted manuscripts are published according to the journal's publication schedule after all editorial and production requirements have been completed.

Any concerns regarding published articles will be addressed in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and applicable correction or retraction procedures.