Peer Review Process

Educational Review: Research and Innovation (ERRI)

Educational Review: Research and Innovation (ERRI) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review system to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research. The review process is conducted fairly, objectively, and confidentially in accordance with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process to minimize bias and maintain academic integrity.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission through the Open Journal Systems (OJS), every manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening conducted by the Managing Editor and the Editor-in-Chief.

Assessment Criteria	Description
Journal Scope	Suitability with ERRI's aims and scope.
Author Guidelines	Compliance with manuscript preparation requirements.
Formatting	Structure, references, tables, figures, and metadata completeness.
Similarity Check	Screening for plagiarism using similarity detection software.
Editorial Quality	Basic assessment of originality and academic relevance.

Manuscripts failing to satisfy these requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

2. Assignment to Section Editor

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to an appropriate Section Editor according to subject expertise. The Section Editor performs a preliminary academic evaluation before initiating the external peer review process.

Section Editor Responsibilities	Description
Academic Screening	Evaluates originality, relevance, and scientific quality.
Reviewer Selection	Selects independent experts with relevant expertise.
Review Coordination	Manages communication throughout the review process.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

ERRI applies a double-blind peer review model. Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process.

Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers possessing expertise in the manuscript's subject area. When necessary, additional reviewers may be invited to resolve conflicting recommendations.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria	Description
Originality	Novel contribution to educational research and innovation.
Scientific Merit	Importance and significance of the study.
Methodological Rigor	Appropriateness of research design and analysis.
Literature Review	Use of relevant and current scholarly references.
Presentation	Organization, clarity, language, and academic writing quality.
Ethical Compliance	Adherence to research and publication ethics.

4. Editorial Decision

After receiving reviewer reports, the Section Editor evaluates the recommendations and submits an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final publication decision.

Decision	Description
Accept	The manuscript is accepted without further revisions.
Minor Revision	Authors revise minor issues identified by reviewers.
Major Revision	Substantial revisions are required before reconsideration.
Reject	The manuscript does not satisfy the journal's publication standards.

The Editor-in-Chief retains full responsibility and authority for all editorial decisions.

5. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to submit:

A revised manuscript.
A detailed response letter addressing every reviewer comment.
Clear explanations of all revisions made.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation whenever necessary.

6. Review Timeline

Editorial Stage	Estimated Duration
Initial Editorial Screening	5–10 working days
Reviewer Invitation	3–7 working days
Peer Review Process	3–6 weeks
Author Revision	2–4 weeks
Final Editorial Decision	1–2 weeks
Production and Publication	2–3 weeks

The review timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the submitted manuscript.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.
Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
Declare any potential conflicts of interest.
Complete reviews within the requested timeframe.
Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical misconduct.

8. Author Responsibilities During Peer Review

Authors are expected to:

Respond professionally to reviewer comments.
Revise manuscripts thoroughly and accurately.
Provide complete responses to all reviewer recommendations.
Maintain academic honesty throughout the revision process.

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and associated documents are treated as confidential. Information obtained during peer review shall not be disclosed or used for personal advantage by editors or reviewers.

10. Publication Ethics

ERRI follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices in handling publication ethics, including:

Research misconduct investigations.
Plagiarism and duplicate publication.
Conflicts of interest.
Complaints and appeals.
Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern.

11. Transparency and Editorial Integrity

All peer review activities are recorded and managed through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform to ensure transparency, accountability, traceability, and the integrity of editorial decisions throughout the publication process.

Editorial Principle	Description
Fairness	Every manuscript is evaluated objectively without discrimination.
Confidentiality	Reviewer and author identities remain anonymous.
Integrity	Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit.
Accountability	All editorial actions are documented within the OJS platform.
Transparency	The peer review process follows internationally recognized publishing standards.

Educational Review: Research and Innovation (ERRI)
Committed to Excellence, Integrity, Transparency, and Innovation in Educational Research through a Fair and Rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review Process.