The Interdisciplinary Journal of Education (IJE) is committed to a rigorous, fair, independent, confidential, and ethically responsible peer-review process.

Peer review is intended to support the editorial assessment of the originality, methodological rigor, scholarly contribution, ethical integrity, clarity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

IJE applies a double-anonymous peer-review model. The journal makes reasonable efforts to conceal the identities of authors from reviewers and the identities of reviewers from authors throughout the review process.

1. Manuscript Submission

Manuscripts must be submitted through the official IJE online submission system and must comply with the journal's Author Guidelines and submission requirements.

For double-anonymous peer review, authors must provide an anonymized main manuscript that does not contain author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or other information that could directly identify the authors.

2. Administrative and Technical Check

Following submission, the editorial office may conduct an administrative and technical check to verify:

• completeness of the submission;
• compliance with the journal's manuscript requirements;
• availability of required author and ethical declarations;
• anonymization of the manuscript;
• reference and file completeness; and
• basic conformity with journal formatting requirements.

Manuscripts with incomplete documentation may be returned to authors for correction before editorial evaluation.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.

The editorial screening considers:

• alignment with the aims and scope of IJE;
• originality and potential scholarly contribution;
• methodological appropriateness and research rigor;
• ethical compliance and research integrity;
• clarity and quality of academic presentation;
• adequacy of scholarly context and references; and
• compliance with the Author Guidelines.

A manuscript may be declined without external review (desk rejection) when it is clearly outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient scholarly or methodological quality, contains major ethical or integrity concerns, or does not meet basic editorial requirements.

A desk-rejection decision does not imply that the topic itself lacks academic value; it indicates that the submission does not meet IJE's requirements for external review in its current form.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject, methodological, or interdisciplinary expertise relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewer selection may consider:

• subject-matter expertise;
• methodological expertise;
• relevant scholarly publication record;
• experience in academic peer review;
• absence of relevant conflicts of interest; and
• ability to provide a timely and constructive review.

Reviewer recommendations provided by authors, where permitted, are treated only as suggestions. The editors retain full responsibility for reviewer selection and are not obligated to invite suggested reviewers.

5. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or interest that could reasonably affect, or be perceived to affect, their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

• recent or ongoing research collaboration with an author;
• close personal or professional relationships;
• direct supervisory or mentoring relationships;
• significant institutional conflicts;
• financial interests related to the research; or
• strong competitive or other circumstances that may compromise impartiality.

A reviewer who believes that a conflict may prevent an objective evaluation should decline the review or disclose the situation to the handling editor before proceeding.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts on their scholarly merit rather than on the identity, institutional status, nationality, or other personal characteristics of the authors.

Reviewers normally consider:

7. Confidentiality of Peer Review

Submitted manuscripts and reviewer reports are confidential scholarly materials.

Reviewers must not:

• share a manuscript or reviewer report without editorial authorization;
• contact authors directly regarding the manuscript;
• use unpublished information, data, arguments, or ideas for personal advantage;
• disclose confidential information obtained through the review process; or
• delegate a review to another person without prior permission from the editor.

Editors and editorial staff are likewise expected to protect the confidentiality of submitted material and the peer-review process.

8. Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports should be objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive.

Personal criticism, hostile language, discriminatory comments, unsubstantiated allegations, or requests for irrelevant citations are inappropriate.

Reviewers should explain their recommendations clearly and provide sufficient scholarly reasoning to support significant criticisms. Where reviewers identify potential research or publication-integrity concerns, these should be reported confidentially to the editor.

9. Reviewer Recommendations

Depending on the evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. They do not themselves constitute the journal's final editorial decision.

10. Author Revision and Response

When revision is requested, authors should submit:

1. a revised manuscript;
2. a detailed point-by-point response to each relevant reviewer and editor comment; and
3. a reasoned explanation where a recommendation has not been adopted.

Authors should identify substantive revisions clearly and respond professionally to reviewer comments.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, assigned to additional reviewers, or evaluated by the handling editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revision.

A request for revision does not constitute acceptance or guarantee subsequent publication.

11. Editorial Decision

The final publication decision is made by the responsible editor based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, reviewer reports, author responses and revisions, ethical considerations, conformity with the journal's scope, and applicable editorial policies.

Where reviewer reports differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent review or further specialist advice.

Acceptance is based on the quality and integrity of the manuscript and is not determined by an author's institutional affiliation, academic position, nationality, commercial relationship, or payment of any journal fee.

12. Submissions Involving Editors or Editorial Board Members

Editors, editorial board members, reviewers, and other persons associated with IJE may submit scholarly work to the journal. Such manuscripts are not exempt from the journal's normal editorial and peer-review requirements.

An editor or editorial board member must not participate in the editorial handling or decision-making process for a manuscript where they have an authorship role or other relevant conflict of interest. Such manuscripts should be handled independently by another qualified editor, with peer review conducted independently of the author-editor.

13. Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in Peer Review

The confidentiality of submitted manuscripts must be preserved when using digital technologies.

Reviewers and editors should not upload confidential manuscripts, substantial manuscript content, unpublished data, or confidential review materials into publicly accessible generative AI systems or other services where confidentiality, data retention, ownership, or reuse cannot be appropriately controlled.

Where AI-assisted tools are permitted by journal policy for limited editorial or language-support purposes, human editors and reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, confidentiality, and scholarly judgment of their work.

Generative AI must not replace independent expert evaluation or be treated as an author or reviewer.

14. Protection Against Peer-Review Manipulation

IJE does not tolerate attempts to manipulate or compromise the peer-review process.

Prohibited conduct includes, but is not limited to:

• fabricated reviewer identities;
• false reviewer contact information;
• impersonation;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• review rings or coordinated manipulation;
• coercive or inappropriate citation requests;
• attempts to improperly influence editors or reviewers; and
• other actions intended to undermine independent editorial assessment.

Suspected manipulation may result in suspension of the review process, rejection of the manuscript, investigation, or other appropriate editorial action.

15. Appeals and Complaints Related to Peer Review

Authors who believe that a substantive error occurred in the editorial or peer-review process may submit a reasoned appeal in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

An appeal should identify the specific issue in the editorial decision and provide scholarly justification. An appeal is not an opportunity to request acceptance solely because the author disagrees with a reviewer's academic judgment.

Where appropriate, appeals should be considered by an editor who was not materially involved in the disputed decision.

16. Indicative Review Timeline

IJE seeks to provide authors with timely editorial decisions while maintaining the rigor and independence of peer review.

Actual processing times may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number and extent of revision rounds, ethical or methodological queries, and other editorial considerations.

These timeframes are indicative only and do not constitute a guarantee of acceptance or publication. Editorial quality and research integrity take priority over speed.

17. Ethical Principles of Peer Review

IJE expects editors and reviewers to conduct peer review in accordance with recognized principles of confidentiality, impartiality, independence, professional conduct, transparency regarding conflicts of interest, and protection of the scholarly record.

Peer review is intended to support sound editorial decision-making and improve scholarly communication while protecting authors, reviewers, readers, and the integrity of published research.