ISSN 2306-0557
Home > Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

As a condition of agreeing to assess the manuscript, all reviewers undertake to keep submitted manuscripts and associated data confidential, and not to redistribute them without permission from the journal. If a reviewer seeks advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, he or she ensures that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report. By this and by other means, BJES endeavour to keep the content of all submissions confidential until the publication date other than in the specific case of its embargoed press release available to  registered journalists. Although we go to every effort to ensure reviewers honour their promise to ensure confidentiality, we are not responsible for the conduct of reviewers.

Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential, and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. Under normal circumstances, blind peer-review is protected from legislation. We cannot, however, guarantee to maintain this confidentiality in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity in the event of a reviewer having written personally derogatory comments about the authors in his or her reports. For this reason as well as for reasons of standard professional courtesy, we request reviewers to refrain from personally negative comments about the authors of submitted manuscripts.

Consistent with the policy of blind review, the author(s)’ name(s) should be listed only on a cover page that will be removed before the manuscript is sent to the reviewers. References to the author(s)’ previous work should be listed as Author(s) in the citations and references.

All manuscripts will be judged on the significance of the content, the inclusion of a valid discussion of implications for practice in the broader field of education, social and humanity sciences, and the clarity and cohesion of the text.

Acknowledgment of cooperating scholars or professionals and funding sources should be added to the end of the manuscript.

Frank comments about the scientific content of the manuscripts, however, are strongly encouraged by the editors. This journal employs double blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process. Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • is original;
  • is methodologically sound;
  • follows appropriate ethical guidelines;
  • has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions;
  • correctly cites previous relevant work.

When the manuscript is submitted, it undergoes one internal review by the series editor and board, and one external single blind review by the publisher. Reviewers have four options: acceptance without revisions, acceptance with minor revisions, acceptance with major revisions, or rejection. If both reviewers accept the manuscript (regardless of the amount of revisions required), the publication process proceeds, provided of course that such revisions are applied by the proponent/s. If there is one rejection and one full acceptance, a third review is required. 

The first author will receive a notice of receipt of the manuscript within one week. If the manuscript is accepted for review, the reviewers’ responses will be sent to the first author within two weeks. During the revision of their manuscript, proponent/s are asked to make their changes visible in the text and, when they disagree with remarks, to explain the grounds for their disagreement. Occasionally, reviewer/s may ask to take a second look to the manuscript, after the revisions, in order to give a final approval.