Peer Review Process

The Vocational: Journal of Educational Technology implements a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific contribution of all published manuscripts. The journal adheres to internationally recognized standards, including the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

All submitted manuscripts undergo a multi-stage evaluation process as follows:

1. Initial Editorial Screening
Each manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team to ensure its alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, originality, academic relevance, and compliance with submission guidelines. Manuscripts are also checked for language quality and ethical standards. Submissions that do not meet these criteria are rejected at this stage.

2. Plagiarism Screening
All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software such as Turnitin or iThenticate. Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 25% or containing unethical overlap are rejected or returned for revision.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review
The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This ensures an objective and unbiased evaluation.

Each manuscript that passes the initial screening is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are carefully selected based on their academic qualifications and publication record. The journal strictly enforces a conflict-of-interest policy to maintain the integrity of the review process.

4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess the manuscript based on several key criteria, including:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope;
  • Originality and novelty of the research;
  • Scientific rigor and methodological soundness;
  • Validity and reliability of data analysis;
  • Clarity of presentation and organization;
  • Contribution to the field;
  • Adequacy and recency of references.

5. Review Timeline
Reviewers are typically given 2–4 weeks to complete their evaluations. The average time from submission to the first decision is approximately 4–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required.

6. Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision;
  • Accept with minor revisions;
  • Request major revisions;
  • Reject.

Authors are required to submit a detailed response to reviewers’ comments when revising their manuscripts.

7. Revision and Re-Review
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Multiple rounds of review may be conducted until the manuscript meets the journal’s quality standards.

8. Final Decision
The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board, based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the quality of revisions.

9. Confidentiality and Ethics
All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality and must not use any unpublished materials for personal research. The journal follows COPE guidelines in handling ethical issues, including plagiarism, data fabrication, and conflicts of interest.

10. Transparency and Integrity
The journal ensures transparency by providing clear peer review policies on its website. In cases of errors or ethical concerns, the journal will publish corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when necessary.