1. Selection and Training of Reviewers:

Reviewers are chosen according to their competence, qualifications, and experience in the pertinent field of study. The Editorial Board may pick reviewers based on recommendations from authors during submission, but the ultimate decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

The Advanced Education Journal appreciates the proficiency and insight of its authors and promotes their engagement in the peer review process. Previous contributors to the journal who possess expertise in the pertinent topic area are invited to act as reviewers for submitted publications. Their thoughts and skills are essential for upholding the quality and integrity of the journal’s publications.

Training: Reviewers are anticipated to possess knowledge of ethical standards in scientific publications. They are advised to consult COPE guidelines and other pertinent resources for ethical review methods.

2. Number of Peer Reviewers Assigned to Each Manuscript:

Each manuscript is generally evaluated by at least two separate peer reviewers. In instances of conflicting or inconsistent reports, an additional reviewer may be appointed to deliver a thorough evaluation.

3. Ownership and Transferability of Reviews:

Reviews are regarded as the intellectual property of the reviewers. Reviewers are urged to deliver constructive and equitable evaluations. The reviews must be respectful and discreet.

Reviews are non-transferable between manuscripts. Every review pertains specifically to the manuscript under evaluation. Reviewers must not utilize information acquired during one review for any alternative purpose or manuscript.

4. Decisions on Acceptance, Revision, and Rejection:

The manuscipts may accept papers for publication contingent upon favorable evaluations and adherence to its publication requirements.

We will return manuscripts to authors for amendments based on reviewer critiques. Revisions must encompass all reviewer remarks and issues.

Rejection: Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal’s criteria, earn unfavorable evaluations, or inadequately address issues highlighted during revisions may be rejected. The editor-in-chief renders the final decision.

5. Review of Submitted Revisions and Handling Appeals:

Authors are encouraged to submit revised manuscripts within a specified timeframe. The revised manuscripts are subject to further review to ensure that all reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed.

If authors disagree with the decision on their manuscript, they can appeal by providing a well-structured argument explaining their position. Appeals are reviewed by the Editorial Board, and a final decision is made.

The reviewer policy outlined above aims to ensure rigorous and ethical peer review practices in the Advanced Education Journal. Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of published research. The policies also provide a transparent framework for manuscript decisions and appeals.

Peer reviewers are essential in upholding the highest ethical standards for publications submitted to Advanced Education. Their moral responsibilities encompass:

Subject knowledge: Reviewers must only consent to evaluate articles within their domain of knowledge, guaranteeing a prompt and comprehensive assessment.

Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality regarding the peer review process and must refrain from discussing the paper or its evaluations both during and after the review period.

Conflict of Interest: In instances of a conflict of interest, such as a personal or professional association with the author that could compromise the impartiality of the review, reviewers must return the article, explicitly stating the conflict of interest.

Impartiality: Reviews must be objective and constructive, eschewing animosity, provocative language, or disparaging remarks.

Professionalism: Reviewers must furnish precise personal and professional information that accurately represents their competence and refrain from imitation throughout the review process.

Plagiarism and Falsification: Provide substantiated arguments for any claims of plagiarism, authorship disputes, or data falsification, supported by pertinent references.

Request for Guidance: Should reviewers harbor concerns regarding plagiarism, authorship, or data fabrication, they must promptly notify the editorial board, soliciting a comprehensive evaluation of the author’s manuscript.

Timeliness: Reviewers must finalize their evaluations promptly, exhibiting regard for the author’s efforts.