Peer Review Policy

Vocational: Journal of Educational Technology is committed to ensuring a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated in accordance with international publishing standards and ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal implements a double-blind peer review system to maintain fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess:

  • Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
  • Originality and relevance of the research
  • Compliance with the journal’s author guidelines
  • Basic methodological soundness
  • Language clarity and academic writing quality

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review (desk rejection). Authors may be asked to revise the manuscript prior to peer review if minor issues are identified.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

This journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which:

  • The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers
  • The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors

This approach ensures an unbiased and independent evaluation of all submissions.

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. In cases of conflicting recommendations, an additional reviewer or editorial board member may be consulted.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject-matter expertise
  • Academic qualifications and publication record
  • Previous reviewing experience

The editorial team ensures that:

  • There are no conflicts of interest
  • Reviewers are independent of the authors’ institutions
  • The integrity of the review process is maintained

The journal strictly avoids the use of fake reviewers and adheres to best practices in reviewer selection.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Methodological rigor and validity
  • Significance and contribution to the field
  • Clarity of presentation and organization
  • Appropriateness and currency of references
  • Ethical compliance of the research

Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor revisions
  • Major revisions
  • Reject

5. Editorial Decision

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor, based on reviewers’ comments and recommendations.

Editorial decisions are independent, objective, and free from commercial or external influence.

Authors will receive:

  • Reviewer comments
  • Editorial decision
  • Revision guidelines (if applicable)

6. Revision Process

Authors are required to:

  • Revise the manuscript according to reviewer comments
  • Provide a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment
  • Submit revisions within the specified timeline

Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.

7. Peer Review Timeline

The journal is committed to maintaining an efficient and timely review process. The average timeline is as follows:

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Reviewer invitation and confirmation: 1 week
  • Review process: 3–4 weeks
  • First decision (average turnaround time): 4–8 weeks

The total time from submission to final decision may vary depending on revisions.

8. Plagiarism Screening

All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate).

  • Manuscripts with a similarity index above 20–25% may be returned for revision or rejected
  • Any indication of plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical practices will result in immediate rejection

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscript content with third parties
  • Use unpublished data for personal research

Confidentiality must be maintained both during and after the review process.

10. Conflict of Interest

All participants (authors, reviewers, editors) must disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should decline invitations if they:

  • Have a personal or professional relationship with the authors
  • Have competing interests related to the manuscript

Editors will ensure that any conflicts are managed appropriately.

11. Ethical Oversight

The journal adheres to COPE guidelines and takes ethical misconduct seriously, including:

  • Plagiarism
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Duplicate publication
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Suspected misconduct will be investigated in accordance with COPE procedures.

12. Transparency and Accountability

The journal ensures:

  • Clear communication with authors and reviewers
  • Fair and unbiased editorial decisions
  • Continuous improvement of the peer review process