1. Overview
Education Tomorrow employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, originality, and significance of all published research. This policy outlines the review process, timelines, evaluation criteria, and responsibilities of all parties involved.
2. Type of Peer Review
Double-Blind Peer Review
Education Tomorrow uses double-blind peer review, where:
- Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
- Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers
- This approach eliminates potential bias and ensures objective evaluation based solely on scholarly merit
3. Peer Review Process (Step-by-Step)
Step 1: Submission and Initial Screening (1–2 weeks)
Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to assess:
- Scope alignment: Does the manuscript fit the journal's thematic focus?
- Guideline compliance: Does it meet formatting and structural requirements?
- Plagiarism screening: Similarity index must be ≤15% (see Plagiarism Detection Policy)
- Ethical compliance: Are there any ethical concerns (e.g., undisclosed conflicts of interest, missing ethical approval)?
Outcomes:
- ✅ Proceed to peer review: Manuscript meets basic standards
- ❌ Desk reject: Manuscript does not fit scope or fails initial screening
- 📝 Revise and resubmit: Minor issues that must be addressed before peer review
Step 2: Reviewer Assignment (1 week)
The editor assigns at least two independent expert reviewers based on:
- Subject matter expertise: Reviewers have demonstrated knowledge in the manuscript's topic area
- Geographic and institutional diversity: To ensure varied perspectives
- Absence of conflicts of interest: No personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors
- Previous review quality: Track record of timely, constructive, and rigorous reviews
Reviewers are invited via the OJS system and must:
- Confirm availability within 3 days
- Declare any conflicts of interest
- Agree to complete the review within 3–4 weeks
Step 3: Peer Review Period (3–4 weeks)
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using a structured review form that assesses:
- Originality: Does the work present a novel contribution to the field?
- Methodological rigor: Is the research design appropriate and well-executed?
- Clarity and structure: Is the manuscript well-written and logically organized?
- Significance: Does the research have practical or theoretical value?
- Evidence base: Are claims supported by adequate and current references (15–25 sources recommended)?
- Ethical compliance: Are all sources properly cited? Is data integrity maintained?
Reviewers provide:
- Confidential comments to the editor: Overall assessment and recommendation
- Comments to the author: Constructive feedback for improving the manuscript
- Recommendation: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject
Step 4: Editorial Decision (1 week)
After receiving reviewer reports, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
| Decision |
Description |
Next Steps |
| Accept |
Manuscript accepted without revisions (rare) |
Proceeds directly to production |
| Minor Revisions |
Small changes required (e.g., clarifications, formatting) |
Author has 1–2 weeks to revise |
| Major Revisions |
Substantial changes needed (e.g., additional analysis, restructuring) |
Author has 3–4 weeks to revise |
| Reject |
Manuscript does not meet standards or fit scope |
Authors may submit elsewhere |
Authors receive:
- Editorial decision letter
- Anonymized reviewer comments
- Guidance on required revisions (if applicable)
Step 5: Revision and Re-Review (if applicable)
If revisions are required, authors must:
- Revise the manuscript according to reviewer and editor feedback
- Prepare a point-by-point response addressing each comment
- Highlight changes in the revised manuscript (using track changes or a separate document)
- Resubmit within the specified timeframe
Revised manuscripts are:
- Re-evaluated by the original reviewers (when possible)
- Assessed to ensure all concerns have been adequately addressed
- Subject to additional rounds of revision if necessary
Step 6: Final Decision
After satisfactory revisions, the editor makes a final determination:
- Accept: Manuscript proceeds to copyediting and production
- Reject: Revisions did not adequately address concerns
4. Timelines
| Stage |
Timeline |
| Initial Screening |
1–2 weeks |
| Reviewer Assignment |
1 week |
| Peer Review |
3–4 weeks |
| Editorial Decision |
1 week |
| Average Time to First Decision |
6–8 weeks |
| Author Revisions (Minor) |
1–2 weeks |
| Author Revisions (Major) |
3–4 weeks |
| Re-review |
2–3 weeks |
| Production (after acceptance) |
2–4 weeks |
| Average Time to Publication |
10–14 weeks (from submission) |
5. Review Criteria (Detailed)
Reviewers assess manuscripts using the following criteria:
5.1 Originality and Contribution
- Does the manuscript present new ideas, findings, or perspectives?
- Does it advance knowledge in the field?
- Is it a significant contribution or merely incremental?
5.2 Methodological Rigor
- Is the research design appropriate for the research questions?
- Are data collection and analysis methods clearly described and justified?
- Are limitations acknowledged?
5.3 Clarity and Organization
- Is the manuscript well-structured with clear sections?
- Is the writing clear, concise, and grammatically correct?
- Are tables, figures, and supplementary materials appropriate and well-presented?
5.4 Evidence and References
- Are claims supported by adequate evidence?
- Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date (preferably within 5 years)?
- Are 15–25 credible sources cited (as per guidelines)?
- Are all citations formatted correctly (APA 7th edition)?
5.5 Significance and Relevance
- Is the research relevant to the journal's audience (practitioners, policymakers, scholars)?
- Does it have practical applications or theoretical implications?
- Does it align with the journal's scope (education, social sciences, development, technology)?
5.6 Ethical Standards
- Are all sources properly cited?
- Is there evidence of plagiarism or self-plagiarism?
- For research involving human subjects: Is ethical approval documented?
- Are conflicts of interest disclosed?
6. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities
6.1 Reviewer Qualifications
Reviewers are selected based on:
- PhD or equivalent expertise in the relevant field
- Publication record in peer-reviewed journals
- Familiarity with the manuscript's topic area
- Track record of timely and constructive reviews
6.2 Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers must:
- Maintain confidentiality: Do not share or discuss the manuscript with others
- Declare conflicts of interest: Decline if unable to provide an unbiased review
- Provide constructive feedback: Comments should be specific, evidence-based, and respectful
- Meet deadlines: Complete reviews within 3–4 weeks
- Evaluate objectively: Base recommendations on scholarly merit, not personal preferences
7. Confidentiality
All submissions, reviews, and editorial communications are strictly confidential and used solely for manuscript evaluation. Reviewers and editors must not:
- Share manuscripts with colleagues or use content before publication
- Disclose their involvement in the review process
- Use information from manuscripts for personal research without permission
8. Appeals
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written request to the Editor-in-Chief at journal@kipchumbafoundation.org within 30 days of receiving the decision.
Appeals must:
- Clearly state the grounds for appeal
- Provide evidence or justification for reconsideration
- Address specific reviewer or editor concerns
Appeals are reviewed by the Editorial Board, and decisions are final.
9. Transparency and Tracking
Authors can track manuscript progress in real time via the OJS Author Dashboard, following these stages:
Submitted → Under Review → Revisions Required → Accepted/Rejected → In Production → Published
10. Ethical Oversight
Education Tomorrow adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Any concerns about ethical misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship disputes) are handled according to COPE flowcharts.
11. Contact Information
For questions about the peer review process, contact:
Education Tomorrow
Kipchumba Foundation
Email: journal@kipchumbafoundation.org
Website: https://journal.kipchumbafoundation.org