Peer Review Process
Journal of Instructional Development, Innovation, and Evaluation (JIDIE) applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and relevance of manuscripts submitted for publication.
In the double-blind review process, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential. Manuscripts are evaluated independently by qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the Editorial Team to determine whether they are appropriate for the journal's focus and scope and comply with the journal's submission requirements.
The initial screening may include:
- conformity with the journal's focus and scope;
- adherence to manuscript structure and formatting requirements;
- completeness of the submission;
- originality and similarity screening;
- ethical compliance; and
- basic assessment of academic quality.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without proceeding to external peer review.
2. Assignment of Reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and suitability for the topic of the manuscript. The Editorial Team also considers potential conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers.
3. Double-Blind Review
JIDIE uses a double-blind peer review system. Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, professionally, and confidentially. Their assessment focuses on the scholarly quality and contribution of the manuscript rather than the identity, institutional affiliation, or personal characteristics of the authors.
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers are generally asked to evaluate the following aspects:
- Relevance to the focus and scope of JIDIE.
- Originality and novelty of the manuscript.
- Clarity of the research problem and objectives.
- Adequacy and appropriateness of the methodology.
- Quality and validity of data analysis.
- Coherence of results and discussion.
- Contribution to educational theory, research, or practice.
- Quality and adequacy of references.
- Clarity of academic writing and organization.
- Ethical considerations, where applicable.
Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
5. Editorial Decision
The final editorial decision is made by the Editor based on the reviewers' recommendations, the quality of the manuscript, and the journal's editorial policies.
Possible editorial decisions include:
- Accept Submission
- Revision Required
- Resubmit for Review
- Resubmit Elsewhere
- Decline Submission
The Editor is not required to follow a reviewer's recommendation if there are reasonable academic or editorial grounds for making a different decision.
6. Revision Process
When revisions are required, authors must revise their manuscript according to the reviewers' and editor's comments.
Authors may be asked to provide a detailed response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
JIDIE may conduct more than one round of peer review when substantial revisions are required.
7. Reviewer Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. They must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal or professional purposes.
Reviewers should provide constructive, objective, and academically justified comments. They should not make personal, offensive, discriminatory, or inappropriate remarks. COPE guidance likewise emphasizes confidentiality, fairness, appropriate criticism, and avoiding unnecessary delays or citation manipulation in peer review.
8. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity. A reviewer should decline the review assignment when they have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic relationship that may compromise their impartiality.
9. Review Timeline
JIDIE aims to conduct the peer review process efficiently while maintaining academic quality. The review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for additional review rounds.
The Editorial Team may appoint alternative reviewers when an invited reviewer is unable to complete the review within the expected timeframe.
10. Final Decision and Publication
A manuscript will only proceed to publication after receiving a favorable editorial decision and completing all required revisions, editorial checks, and production procedures.
Acceptance for publication does not guarantee immediate publication, as the manuscript must complete the journal's editorial and production stages.
11. Appeals
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made based on a significant misunderstanding, procedural error, or inappropriate review may submit an appeal to the Editor.
Appeals should provide clear academic or procedural reasons and should not simply disagree with the reviewers' opinions. The Editor may seek additional clarification or an independent assessment when appropriate.
JIDIE Peer Review Flow
Submission → Initial Editorial Screening → Reviewer Assignment → Double-Blind Peer Review → Editorial Decision → Revision → Second Review (if necessary) → Final Acceptance → Copyediting → Production → Publication
