Peer Review Policy

JAPED is committed to a rigorous, transparent, and ethically conducted peer-review process that upholds the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the DOAJ, and SciELO. The following describes the full peer-review process from submission to decision.

Double-Blind Peer Review JAPED employs double-blind peer review: the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors, throughout the entire review process. Authors must ensure that their manuscript files contain no identifying information (author names, institutional affiliations, self-citations that would identify the authors) before submission. A cover sheet with author information should be submitted as a separate file.

■  Step 1: Initial Desk Screening  All submitted manuscripts are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief within ten (10) working days. Manuscripts are screened for: alignment with JAPED's scope; compliance with submission guidelines; language quality; absence of plagiarism (software screening); and research ethics compliance. Manuscripts failing desk review are returned with a desk rejection letter within 10 working days.

■  Step 2: Reviewer Assignment  Manuscripts passing desk review are assigned to a minimum of two (2) independent external reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of published expertise, absence of conflicts of interest, and prior review performance. The editorial team uses the JAPED Reviewer Database and recommendations from the International Advisory Board.

■  Step 3: Review Period  Reviewers are asked to confirm availability within five (5) working days of invitation and to complete their review within thirty (30) days. Reviewers who do not respond within five days of a reminder are replaced. The average review period from submission to first decision is 60–90 calendar days.

■  Step 4: Reviewer Reports Shared  Once all reviewer reports are received, anonymised copies of all reports are shared with each reviewer who contributed to the assessment, before the editorial decision is communicated to the authors.

■  Step 5: Editorial Decision  The Editor-in-Chief issues one of four decisions: (1) Accept as submitted; (2) Minor revisions; (3) Major revisions; (4) Reject. The decision and consolidated reviewer feedback are communicated to the corresponding author within five (5) working days of the Editor-in-Chief completing the assessment.

■  Step 6: Revisions and Re-review  Minor revisions are due within twenty-one (21) days. Major revisions are due within sixty (60) days. Revised manuscripts undergoing major revision are typically returned to the original reviewers. Second-round decisions are communicated within thirty (30) days of revised manuscript receipt.

JAPED does not invite reviewers who: are current or recent co-authors of the submitting authors; are at the same institution as any listed author; have a known personal or professional relationship with the authors that could compromise impartiality; or have a financial or institutional interest in the research outcome. Authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers and may identify up to three reviewers they wish to exclude (with reasons). The editorial team is not obligated to act on these suggestions but will consider them.

Review Timeline Average time from submission to first decision: 60–90 calendar days. Average time from submission to acceptance (including revisions): 120–180 calendar days. Authors are notified of receipt within 5 working days of submission and may request a status update at any time.

All article types published in JAPED are subject to peer review, including: full-length articles; research notes; policy commentaries; review articles; and letters. Correspondence and published corrections may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.