Peer Review Policy

Advances in Educational Studies and Inclusive Practices (AESIP), published by Synergy Publication, is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly quality, fairness, transparency, and ethical integrity in academic publishing.

All submitted manuscripts, except editorials, invited commentaries, and book reviews, undergo rigorous peer review in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and best practices recommended by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are screened for plagiarism using iThenticate plagiarism detection software provided through Crossref prior to peer review. The editorial team manually evaluates similarity reports to distinguish acceptable scholarly overlap from potential instances of plagiarism or unethical duplication.

Type of Peer Review

Advances in Educational Studies and Inclusive Practices (AESIP) employs a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer review process, whereby:

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

Reviewer identities remain confidential and are not disclosed unless a reviewer voluntarily chooses to reveal them. All reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential and must not use unpublished material for personal advantage or research purposes. This process ensures impartial evaluation based solely on scholarly merit, independent of gender, institutional affiliation, nationality, career stage, or personal reputation.

Peer Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned handling editor evaluates whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of AESIP, including educational studies, inclusive education, policy, pedagogy, assessment, and related fields.
  • Meets minimum standards of originality, clarity, and academic contribution.
  • Complies with ethical and submission guidelines.
  • Passes plagiarism screening, with a similarity threshold of less than 10%.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk-rejected without external review, typically within 7–14 days of submission.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to at least two independent subject experts.

Reviewer selection is based on:

  • Subject expertise in education, pedagogy, policy, or inclusive practices.
  • Diversity of academic perspectives and methodological expertise.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest, including institutional or personal connections.

3. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and contribution to educational research or practice.
  • Relevance to educational studies and inclusive practices.
  • Theoretical and methodological rigor.
  • Clarity, structure, and academic presentation.
  • Ethical soundness of research design and reporting.
  • Potential impact on education policy, practice, or theory.

Reviewers recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor revisions
  • Major revisions
  • Reject

4. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor makes the final decision based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment.

If reviewer recommendations differ significantly, an additional reviewer may be consulted. Authors are typically notified of the first decision within 8–12 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

5. Revisions

Authors submitting revised manuscripts must provide a detailed, point-by-point response to all reviewer and editorial comments.

Revised manuscripts may be sent for further review if substantial changes have been made.

6. Final Acceptance

Only manuscripts that adequately address reviewer feedback and meet AESIP’s scholarly, ethical, and editorial standards are accepted for publication.

Transparency and Timelines

This peer review policy is publicly accessible on the journal website.

  • Average time to first decision: 8–12 weeks
  • Average time from submission to publication: 4–6 months (depending on revision cycles)

Submission, acceptance, and publication dates are clearly displayed on all published articles to ensure transparency.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.
  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely reviews.
  • Avoid personal, discriminatory, or unprofessional comments.

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless voluntarily disclosed.

Reviewer recognition may be provided through:

  • Annual acknowledgment on the journal website (with consent).
  • Integration with services such as Publons or ReviewerCredits.
  • Reviewer certificates upon request.

Editorial Independence and Ethical Oversight

Editorial decisions are made independently of the publisher, sponsors, or institutional influences and are based solely on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, and peer review recommendations. The publisher does not interfere in editorial decision-making.

Special issues are subject to the same double-blind peer review standards as regular submissions. Submissions from editors or editorial board members are handled independently to ensure impartial review.

The journal follows COPE guidelines for handling appeals, complaints, and allegations of research or publication misconduct.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal request to the Editor-in-Chief with a detailed justification and response to reviewer comments. Appeals are evaluated carefully and may involve consultation with additional editors or independent reviewers.

All appeals and complaints are handled in accordance with COPE ethical guidelines to ensure fairness, transparency, and academic integrity.