Education & Social Sciences

IJESS considers peer review to be a fundamental component of scholarly publishing. The quality, credibility, and academic integrity of the journal depend significantly on the expertise, independence, and professionalism of its reviewers.

Reviewers are invited to provide an objective and constructive assessment of submitted manuscripts and to assist the Editorial Board in determining whether a manuscript meets the journal's standards for publication. Through thoughtful peer review, reviewers contribute not only to editorial decision-making but also to the improvement of individual manuscripts and the advancement of knowledge in education, humanities, social sciences, and related interdisciplinary fields.

IJESS welcomes qualified academics, researchers, professionals, and subject specialists from diverse geographical and institutional backgrounds to participate in its peer-review process.

ROLE OF A REVIEWER

A reviewer is expected to provide an independent scholarly assessment of a manuscript based on its academic quality, originality, relevance, methodology, clarity, and contribution to existing knowledge.

The reviewer should evaluate the manuscript objectively and provide comments that are sufficiently detailed to help the authors improve their work. A review should identify both strengths and weaknesses and should distinguish between major issues that affect the validity or contribution of the study and minor issues that can be corrected during revision.

Reviewers should remember that the purpose of peer review is not simply to identify errors or recommend rejection. Constructive criticism, appropriate suggestions, and clear explanations are essential components of a high-quality review.

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, research experience, methodological knowledge, publication record, and familiarity with the topic addressed by the manuscript.

The Editorial Office may consider a reviewer's:

§     Academic qualifications

§     Research specialization

§     Previous publications

§     Methodological expertise

§     Previous peer-review experience

§     Institutional and geographical diversity

§     Availability to complete the review within the required timeframe

The journal seeks to avoid assigning manuscripts to individuals who have a potential conflict of interest with the authors or the research.

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should carefully consider whether they have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript.

Reviewers should also consider whether they can complete the review within the requested deadline.

A reviewer should decline an invitation when:

§     The manuscript falls substantially outside their area of expertise.

§     They have a personal, professional, financial, or academic conflict of interest.

§     They have recently collaborated with one or more authors.

§     They are unable to provide an independent assessment.

§     They cannot complete the review within the required timeframe.

§     They believe their identity or relationship with the authors could compromise impartiality.

If declining an invitation, reviewers are encouraged to provide a brief explanation to the Editorial Office and, where appropriate, recommend another qualified reviewer.

All manuscripts submitted to IJESS are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

§     Share the manuscript with another person without prior permission from the Editor.

§     Disclose information about the manuscript to colleagues or other researchers.

§     Discuss the manuscript or its findings publicly.

§     Use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage.

§     Upload confidential manuscript content to publicly accessible platforms or external AI

systems that may retain or reuse the material.

The confidentiality obligation applies during the review process and continues after the review has been completed.

IJESS follows a double-blind peer-review process, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are normally concealed from one another. Reviewers should therefore avoid attempting to identify the authors unless this is unavoidable for legitimate scholarly reasons.

Likewise, reviewers should not disclose their own identity through comments, correspondence, file properties, or other means.

Reviews must be based on the scholarly content of the manuscript rather than the identity, nationality, institution, gender, religion, professional position, or personal characteristics of the authors.

Reviewers should assess manuscripts according to consistent academic standards and should avoid personal, hostile, dismissive, or unnecessarily harsh language.

A disagreement with the author's interpretation does not by itself constitute grounds for rejection. Reviewers should distinguish between genuine methodological or evidentiary weaknesses and differences in academic perspective.

Reviewers are encouraged to consider the following areas when evaluating a manuscript.

1. Originality

Does the manuscript present original research, ideas, interpretations, evidence, or analysis?

Does it provide a meaningful contribution beyond what is already established in the literature?

2. Relevance and Scope

Is the manuscript relevant to the aims and scope of IJESS?

Does the subject have sufficient relevance to education, social sciences, humanities, or related interdisciplinary fields?

3. Research Question and Objectives

Are the research questions, hypotheses, or objectives clearly stated?

Are they appropriate and sufficiently focused?

4. Literature Review

Does the manuscript demonstrate adequate knowledge of relevant previous research?

Does it engage critically with the literature rather than merely summarize existing studies?

Are important and relevant sources appropriately cited?

5. Methodology

Is the research design appropriate for the stated objectives?

Are the methods sufficiently described to allow readers to understand how the research was conducted?

Where applicable, are sampling procedures, data collection methods, analytical techniques, instruments, and ethical considerations adequately explained?

6. Results and Analysis

Are the findings clearly presented?

Are the analyses appropriate and adequately supported by the evidence?

Are tables, figures, and statistical results accurately presented and interpreted?

7. Discussion

Does the discussion explain the significance of the findings?

Does it appropriately relate the results to previous research and theoretical perspectives?

Does it avoid unsupported claims or conclusions that extend beyond the evidence?

8. Conclusion

Does the conclusion address the research objectives?

Does it accurately reflect the findings without introducing unsupported information?

9. Practical and Theoretical Contribution

Does the study offer meaningful implications for researchers, educators, policymakers, practitioners, institutions, or society?

10. Presentation and Language

Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized?

Are terminology, grammar, tables, figures, references, and formatting sufficiently clear for academic publication?

Reviewers have an important responsibility in identifying potential ethical concerns.

Where relevant, reviewers should notify the Editor if they observe indications of:

§     Plagiarism

§     Duplicate publication

§     Fabricated or manipulated data

§     Suspicious image manipulation

§     Unethical research involving human participants

§     Undisclosed conflicts of interest

§     Inappropriate or excessive citation practices

§     Significant overlap with another published work

Reviewers should not independently contact the authors to investigate suspected misconduct. Concerns should be communicated confidentially to the Editor.

The Editorial Office will determine the appropriate course of action.

Reviewers must disclose any circumstances that could affect the impartiality of their assessment.

Potential conflicts may include:

§     Current or recent collaboration with an author.

§     Employment at the same institution.

§     Close personal or professional relationships.

§     Direct academic competition.

§     Financial interests related to the research.

§     Supervisory or student relationships.

§     Personal disputes with an author.

§     Prior involvement in the research being evaluated.

Having a potential conflict does not necessarily imply misconduct; however, it should be disclosed so that the Editor can determine whether reassignment is appropriate.

When in doubt, reviewers should consult the Editorial Office before proceeding.

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts entrusted to them.

Reviewers should not upload manuscripts, unpublished research, confidential reviewer comments, or other protected materials to generative AI systems or external tools where the information may be stored, processed, or used for purposes beyond the review.

AI-assisted tools may not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment.

The reviewer remains fully responsible for the accuracy, relevance, fairness, and confidentiality of the review report.

A high-quality review should be clear, balanced, specific, and constructive.

Reviewers should begin by identifying the manuscript's principal contribution and major strengths. They should then explain the substantive issues that require attention.

Comments should be specific enough for the authors to understand:

§     What the problem is.

§     Why it matters.

§     Where it occurs.

§     How it might be addressed.

Whenever possible, reviewers should distinguish between major revisions and minor revisions.

For example, concerns regarding research design, sampling, analysis, validity, or interpretation should be identified as major issues, whereas typographical errors, unclear wording, formatting inconsistencies, or minor citation issues may be treated as minor concerns.

Comments intended for authors should remain professional and constructive.

Reviewers should avoid:

§     Insulting or dismissive language.

§     Personal criticism.

§     Speculation about the author's motives.

§     Statements about an author's competence or character.

§     Demands for unnecessary citations.

§     Requests that authors cite the reviewer's own work unless genuinely relevant.

§     Instructions that exceed the reviewer's academic role.

The objective is to help authors improve the manuscript while providing the Editor with an informed assessment.

Where the review system provides a separate confidential section, reviewers may communicate concerns directly to the Editor.

Such comments may address:

§     Serious ethical concerns.

§     Suspected plagiarism.

§     Potential conflicts of interest.

§     Serious methodological weaknesses.

§     Concerns that should not be communicated directly to the authors.

Confidential comments should be consistent with the reviewer's overall recommendation and should never be used to make inappropriate personal remarks about the authors.

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes or only very minor editorial corrections.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is generally sound but requires limited revisions before publication.

Major Revision

The manuscript has potential for publication but requires substantial clarification, additional analysis, methodological improvement, restructuring, or other significant revisions.

Reject

The manuscript has fundamental weaknesses, falls outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient originality or scholarly contribution, or contains methodological or ethical problems that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor and may not always correspond exactly to an individual reviewer's recommendation.

When invited to review a revised manuscript, reviewers should focus primarily on whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised during the previous review. Reviewers should not introduce entirely new requirements unless new issues have emerged or the previous review could not reasonably have identified them. The revised manuscript should be assessed fairly and consistently with the original review.

Timely peer review is essential to an efficient publication process.

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they can reasonably complete the review within the requested period.

If circumstances arise that prevent timely completion, reviewers should notify the Editorial Office as soon as possible.

If a reviewer has already accepted an invitation but requires additional time, an extension may be requested from the Editor.

IJESS recognizes the valuable contribution of reviewers to the scholarly publishing process.

Subject to the journal's applicable procedures, reviewers may receive acknowledgement or certificates for completed reviews.

The journal may also recognize outstanding reviewers based on the quality, timeliness, and consistency of their contributions.

Reviewer information will be handled in accordance with the journal's confidentiality and privacy policies.

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to:

1. Provide an independent and objective assessment.
2. Maintain strict confidentiality.
3. Declare relevant conflicts of interest.
4. Respect the intellectual property of the authors.
5. Avoid using unpublished information for personal benefit.
6. Provide constructive and evidence-based comments.
7. Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
8. Notify the Editor of suspected ethical concerns.
9. Avoid discriminatory or offensive language.
10. Maintain professional standards throughout the review process.

Reviewer Checklist

Before submitting a review, reviewers are encouraged to confirm that:

Academic Quality

§     The manuscript is relevant to the journal's scope.

§     The research question or objectives are clear.

§     The literature review is appropriate.

§     The methodology is suitable.

§     The results are adequately supported.

§     The conclusions follow from the findings.

Presentation

§     The manuscript is logically organized.

§     Tables and figures are appropriate.

§     References are relevant and adequately presented.

§     The language is sufficiently clear.

Ethics

§     Potential plagiarism or duplicate publication has been considered.

§     Ethical approval is addressed where applicable.

§     Potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed.

§     No confidential information has been improperly shared.

Review Quality

§     Comments are constructive and specific.

§     Major and minor concerns are clearly distinguished.

§     The recommendation is consistent with the review.

§     The review has been completed within the requested timeframe.

IJESS sincerely appreciates the time, expertise, and intellectual contribution of every reviewer. Peer reviewers perform an essential service to the academic community by helping ensure that published research is credible, rigorous, original, and useful.

Through careful and constructive peer review, reviewers contribute not only to the quality of IJESS but also to the development of researchers and the advancement of knowledge worldwide.

Thank you for supporting the International Journal of Education & Social Sciences and for contributing to the integrity of scholarly communication.