Peer Review Process

The Journal of Learning Innovation and Educational Technology (JLIET) implements a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the quality, originality, validity, and academic integrity of all published articles. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review procedure.

All submitted manuscripts undergo the following stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the Editorial Team conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the scope of JLIET.
  • Complies with the journal's formatting and submission guidelines.
  • Meets basic standards of academic writing and research quality.
  • Contains all required components of a scientific article.
  • Passes plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected before entering the peer-review stage.

2. Plagiarism Screening

All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software before being sent for review.

The similarity index should not exceed 20%, excluding references, quotations, and commonly used methodological expressions.

Manuscripts identified with excessive similarity, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical publication practices will be rejected immediately.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Relevance to the journal's scope
  • Theoretical and conceptual contribution
  • Research methodology
  • Quality of data analysis
  • Validity and reliability of findings
  • Discussion and interpretation of results
  • Academic writing quality
  • References and scholarly contribution

The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

4. Review Decision

Based on reviewers' recommendations, the Editorial Team may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept Submission

The manuscript is accepted without revision and proceeds directly to the production stage.

Minor Revisions Required

The manuscript requires minor improvements before acceptance.

Major Revisions Required

Substantial revisions are necessary, and the revised manuscript may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.

Resubmit for Review

The manuscript shows potential but requires significant restructuring and re-evaluation.

Reject Submission

The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or falls outside the journal's scope.

5. Revision Process

Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts according to reviewers' comments and submit a detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified timeframe may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from the publication process.

6. Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on:

  • Reviewer recommendations,
  • Quality of revisions,
  • Editorial assessment,
  • Compliance with publication ethics and journal standards.

The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final.

7. Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to:

  • Copyediting
  • Language editing (if necessary)
  • Layout and typesetting
  • Proofreading
  • DOI assignment
  • Online publication

Authors will receive page proofs for final approval before publication.

Review Timeline

The average review and publication process is as follows:

Stage

Estimated Time

Initial Editorial Screening

1–2 weeks

Peer Review Process

3–6 weeks

Author Revision

1–3 weeks

Final Editorial Decision

1 week

Production and Publication

1–2 weeks

The overall publication process generally takes approximately 6–12 weeks, depending on the quality of the manuscript and the responsiveness of authors and reviewers.