Peer Review Process

A Structured, Confidential and Independent Process for Evaluating Research in Teacher Education and Pedagogy

PEER REVIEW COMMITMENT

CORE REVIEW PRINCIPLES

EDITORIAL WORKFLOW

Submission through the Journal System

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's prescribed submission process together with the information and supporting material required for editorial assessment.

Submission of a manuscript does not imply automatic entry into external peer review. Each submission may first undergo preliminary editorial evaluation to determine its suitability for further consideration.

Initial Assessment before External Review

The editorial team may conduct an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of TEIJPR and satisfies basic scholarly, ethical and submission requirements.

Initial assessment may consider the manuscript's relevance to teacher education and pedagogy, originality, academic substance, completeness, clarity, methodology or intellectual approach, ethical declarations, references and overall suitability for peer review.

A manuscript may be returned for preliminary correction or declined without external review where it is clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete or unsuitable for further scholarly evaluation.

Scholarly Evaluation by Subject Experts

Reviewers independently examine the manuscript and provide scholarly comments concerning its strengths, limitations, academic relevance and suitability for publication.

The purpose of peer review is not merely to identify errors but also to evaluate whether the research question is significant, the methodology or scholarly approach is appropriate, the evidence supports the conclusions and the manuscript contributes meaningfully to existing knowledge.

Where blinded review arrangements are applied, participants in the editorial process should preserve the anonymity and confidentiality required by that review model.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Central Scholarly Criterion of TEIJPR

Because Teacher Education is the central academic identity of TEIJPR, reviewers and editors should consider whether the manuscript contributes meaningfully to understanding teachers, teacher educators, teacher preparation, professional development, pedagogy or teaching-learning practice.

A manuscript concerning artificial intelligence, digital education, higher education, psychology, assessment, policy, sustainability or another connected field may be appropriate where its educational contribution is sufficiently clear and consistent with the scholarly orientation of the journal.

This criterion helps ensure that the journal maintains a coherent academic profile rather than becoming a general education publication without a distinctive teacher-education focus.

Methodology Should Fit the Research Question

TEIJPR recognises diverse legitimate approaches to educational inquiry. Reviewers should evaluate methodology according to the research question, purpose of the study and scholarly traditions relevant to the manuscript.

Quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, experimental, action research, case-study, design-based, systematic-review, meta-analytic, bibliometric, theoretical and conceptual approaches should be assessed according to standards appropriate to their respective methodologies.

A reviewer should not reject a legitimate methodology simply because another research approach would personally have been preferred.

Constructive and Evidence-Based Feedback

Reviewer comments should be specific, respectful, academically reasoned and useful for both editorial decision-making and manuscript improvement.

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish clearly between major concerns affecting the validity or contribution of a manuscript and minor suggestions concerning presentation, terminology or clarity.

Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, insulting language and unsupported accusations concerning authors are not appropriate components of scholarly peer review.

RECOMMENDED REVIEW FORMAT

1. Overall Assessment

Briefly identify the purpose, relevance, principal contribution and overall quality of the manuscript.

2. Major Comments

Explain substantive concerns relating to originality, theoretical framework, methodology, evidence, analysis, ethics, findings or conclusions.

3. Minor Comments

Identify specific improvements concerning clarity, terminology, organisation, tables, figures, references or presentation.

4. Recommendation

Provide an editorial recommendation that is consistent with the substantive reasoning explained in the report.

Reviewers should disclose any financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive or personal relationship that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their impartiality.

Where a significant conflict exists, a reviewer should ordinarily decline the assignment or inform the editorial team so that an appropriate decision can be made.

Editors should similarly avoid handling manuscripts where significant conflicts could undermine independent editorial judgement.

Protecting Unpublished Research

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, unpublished data and other non-public material associated with the review process should be treated as confidential.

Reviewers and editors should not use unpublished ideas, findings, methods, instruments or data obtained through peer review for personal research, commercial benefit, competitive advantage or another unauthorised purpose.

Confidentiality obligations continue after completion of the review process irrespective of the final editorial decision.

Human Scholarly Judgement Remains Essential

Peer review requires independent academic expertise and human judgement. Artificial-intelligence systems should not replace reviewers or editors in determining the originality, validity, relevance, quality or scholarly contribution of a manuscript.

Confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports or identifiable manuscript material should not be uploaded to public or external generative-AI platforms where confidentiality, privacy, security or data-retention conditions cannot be appropriately assured.

Where a permitted technical tool assists with a limited task, the reviewer or editor remains fully responsible for the accuracy, reasoning, confidentiality and integrity of the final evaluation.

EDITORIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Reviewer Recommendations Are Advisory

After receiving peer-review reports, the responsible editor considers the reviewers' assessments together with the manuscript, journal scope, ethical requirements and other relevant scholarly considerations.

Reviewers may reach different conclusions about the same manuscript. Where evaluations differ significantly, the editor may examine the reasoning of the reports, seek clarification or obtain additional scholarly assessment where necessary.

The final editorial decision does not result from a simple numerical count of reviewer recommendations. The quality and substance of the scholarly reasoning are also relevant to editorial judgement.

Responding to Peer-Review Comments

Where revision is requested, authors should consider reviewer and editorial comments carefully and revise the manuscript where appropriate.

Authors should ordinarily provide a clear response explaining how substantive comments were addressed and identifying relevant revisions made to the manuscript.

Authors are not required to agree automatically with every reviewer suggestion. Where a recommendation is not adopted, authors may provide a respectful and academically reasoned explanation.

A request for revision should not be interpreted as a guarantee that the manuscript will ultimately be accepted for publication.

A revised manuscript may be assessed by the editor and, where necessary, may be returned to one or more reviewers for further evaluation.

Further review may examine whether major concerns have been addressed, whether new problems have arisen from the revision and whether the manuscript now satisfies the scholarly requirements for publication.

Reviewers evaluating a revision should consider the authors' responses fairly and should distinguish between unresolved substantive concerns and reasonable academic disagreement.

When a manuscript is accepted, it may proceed to editorial and production preparation. This may include copyediting, formatting, metadata verification, reference checking, proof preparation and other publication-related processes.

Authors may be asked to review proofs and identify necessary production corrections before publication.

Acceptance does not remove the responsibility of authors for the accuracy, originality, ethics and integrity of the research.

Decisions Based on Scholarly Merit

Editorial decisions should be based on academic considerations such as quality, originality, relevance, methodology, evidence, ethical integrity and contribution to the journal's scholarly field.

Decisions should not be improperly influenced by an author's nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, geographical location, academic position, professional status or other characteristics unrelated to the quality of the scholarly work.

Commercial, institutional or personal considerations should not override responsible editorial judgement.

Some manuscripts may combine teacher education with artificial intelligence, educational psychology, technology, sociology, policy, sustainability, Indian Knowledge Systems or other fields.

Where a manuscript requires specialised expertise in more than one field, the editorial team may seek appropriate multidisciplinary input so that its different scholarly dimensions can be evaluated adequately.

Interdisciplinary research should demonstrate meaningful integration of the relevant perspectives and retain sufficient alignment with the academic scope of TEIJPR.

Peer review reduces but cannot eliminate every possible error. Publication therefore does not prevent subsequent examination of credible concerns affecting the reliability or ethical integrity of a published article.

Where significant post-publication issues are verified, appropriate action may include clarification, correction, an editorial notice, expression of concern or retraction depending upon the nature and seriousness of the matter.

The primary objective of post-publication action is to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

PEER REVIEW AT A GLANCE

Editorial Screening Expert Review Confidentiality Conflict Disclosure Objective Evaluation Constructive Feedback Revision Editorial Decision Research Integrity

TEIJPR PEER-REVIEW PHILOSOPHY

✦

 

 

Teacher Education

International Journal of Pedagogical Research

TEIJPR

CONFIDENTIALITY  •  OBJECTIVITY  •  CONSTRUCTIVE REVIEW  •  SCHOLARLY INTEGRITY