Peer Review Process

AX Publications journals are committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, transparency, fairness, and publication ethics. All research and review manuscripts undergo an initial editorial evaluation followed, where appropriate, by a double-anonymous peer-review process. AX Publications journals follow the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editorial team to determine whether they meet the journals' basic publication requirements. This evaluation considers:

• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

• Originality and potential scholarly contribution.

• Clarity of research objectives and arguments.

• Appropriateness and rigor of the methodology.

• Quality of writing and organization.

• Compliance with ethical and submission requirements.

Manuscripts are also screened for similarity using iThenticate. Submissions that do not meet the journal's standards may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

2. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers through the journal's editorial management system.

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, research experience, methodological competence, and independence from the authors. Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers; however, the editorial team retains full responsibility for reviewer selection and assignment.

3. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

AX Publications journals employ a double-anonymous peer-review system, meaning that authors and reviewers are not informed of each other's identities during the review process.

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:

• Originality and significance of the contribution.

• Relevance to educational research and practice.

• Adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework.

• Methodological rigor and transparency, where applicable.

• Quality of literature synthesis, analysis, and critical interpretation.

• Validity and clarity of conclusions.

• Appropriateness and accuracy of references.

• Organization, readability, and academic writing quality.

• Compliance with research and publication ethics.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

4. Editorial Decision and Revision

The Editor-in-Chief considers the reviewers' reports and independently evaluates the manuscript before making an editorial decision.

Possible decisions include:

• Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's publication standards.

• Minor Revision: Limited improvements are required.

• Major Revision: Substantial changes are necessary before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or has fundamental scholarly weaknesses.

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how the reviewers' comments have been addressed.

5. Review Rounds and Final Decision

The review process normally begins with one round of external peer review. Revised manuscripts are subsequently reassessed by the editorial team and may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

A second or additional review round may be required when substantial methodological, theoretical, or interpretive concerns remain unresolved. The number of review rounds depends on the quality of the manuscript and the extent of the required revisions.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations, the authors' responses, the quality of revisions, and the manuscript's overall scholarly contribution. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the editorial outcome.

6. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

All manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must evaluate submissions objectively, provide constructive feedback, and disclose any financial, professional, or personal conflicts of interest.

Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage. Any suspected research misconduct is addressed in accordance with the journals' publication ethics policies and COPE guidelines.

Editorial decisions are made independently of the publisher's financial interests, authors' institutional affiliations, or other non-academic considerations.

7. Final Acceptance and Publication

Once a manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to copyediting, formatting, proofreading, and publication. Authors may be asked to review proofs to identify production errors.

Acceptance does not guarantee publication in a particular issue. Publication scheduling is determined by the editorial office.

AX Publications journals are committed to ensuring that published scholarship meets standards of originality, methodological soundness, academic integrity, and relevance to international educational research communities.