e-ISSN: 1309-517X

Peer Review Policy

Double Blind Peer Review

Contemporary Educational Technology maintains a double-blind peer review policy, in which both the reviewer and the author are anonymous. To facilitate this, authors have anonymized their manuscripts to ensure that their identity is not been given away. Authors’ own works need to be blinded in the references and in-text citations.

Manuscript that pass the initial screening of the editorial office will be assigned to section editors and reviewers to evaluate the originality and quality of the manuscript. Peer review is an important process of evaluation, designed to keep the quality of scholarly work high. The process aims to give constructive feedback to the authors, so that their work can become of the highest academic standard possible. Peer reviews are also helping editors to decide the paper’s suitability for publication in the journal.

It is very important to comply with ethical values by editors, peers and authors in order to carry out a healthy peer assessment process. To this end, if a reviewer holds a conflict of interest that may prejudice the review report, the reviewer should contact the editorial office or reject the review invitation. Conflict of interests occur when professional judgement is influenced by another interest, for example a financial relationship, an intellectual belief or a personal relationship or rivalry. To keep the standards of credibility high, we ask reviewers to be aware of a potential conflict of interest and to inform us about it. Additionally, reviewers should never share the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, with someone else. Double blind peer review is a confidential process in which both the author and reviewer should be careful to keep the content confidential. Reviewers must inform the editorial office if they prefer a student or colleague to write the review on their behalf. Finally, we ask reviewers to provide review reports in a timely manner, to provide a high quality publishing service that benefits the scientific community. Please contact the editorial office if you need a deadline extension of your review.

It is expected that the first round of double-blind peer-review process will be completed within 3-6 months after submission. However, if further revisions are requested, authors should expect longer processing times.

A Step by Step Reviewer’s Guide:

  1. Investigate the article’s content and the journal to which it is submitted:
    • Does the article meet the submission criteria (length, scope and presentation) of the journal?
  2. Make an assessment of the article:
    • Is the methodology of the article accurate?
      • Is the research question clearly formulated?
      • Are the research components well-defined?
      • Are hypotheses identified as such?
      • Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results?
    • What is the quality of the presentation?
      • Is the data presented in an appropriate manner?
      • Is the English level sufficient?
    • Does the article have the highest level of scientific soundness?
      • Is the research performed with the highest technical standards?
      • Are the data robust enough to draw conclusions?
      • Are the references to other scholarly works sufficient and complete?
      • Is the article free of fraud, plagiarism or any other unethical behavior?
    • Is the research relevant?
      • Is the same information already published before, either by the same author or by another scientist?
      • Is the information novel and is there an overall benefit of publishing this work?
  3. Write a review report:
    • Follow the steps on the review form.
      Keep in mind: As a reviewer, you may disagree with the author’s opinions, but if they are consistent with the available evidence, you should allow them to stand. If you provide feedback, try to give constructive criticism. Positive feedback as well as negative feedback can help an author to improve the manuscript.
    • Make a recommendation:
      • Accept: if the manuscript can be published in its current form.
      • Accept after minor changes: if the manuscript needs some light revisions before publishing it.
      • Reject and start review process again after major changes: if the manuscript needs major revisions before publishing it.
      • Reject: if the paper is not suitable for publication within this journal or if the revisions that would have to be undertaken are too fundamental.
  4. Some things to keep in mind:
    • Use appropriate language in addressing your comments to the author. Carefully construct your comments so that the author understands fully what to improve. Generalized and vague statements should be avoided, along with negative comments that are not supported with arguments. Lectito editors never edit reviewer comments and thus we ask you to use appropriate language. Confidential comments to the editors can be made on the review form in the special box assigned for it.
    • If you have time, give suggestions to the author how to improve clarity, succinctness and overall quality of the manuscript.