Review Policy

Review policy for JECCE

Peer Review Process

All research articles submitted to JECCE undergo a peer review process. This process involves two independent, expert peer reviewers. The journal has its criteria for selection and process of peer review according to the nature of JECCE. The following are the points involved in the peer review process of JECCE.

  1. Review by Editorial

All articles submitted to JECCE are first reviewed in the editorial meeting. Decisions about the acceptance of articles for the peer review process are made in this meeting with mutual consensus, based on the quality of research, relevancy to the journal, and its scope and contribution to the body of knowledge. The observations made by the editorial are conveyed to the authors through OJS. Based on mutual consensus the Editorial makes one of the following decisions about the manuscript:

  1. Reject/Regret
  2. Consider after Major Changes
  • Consider after Minor Changes
  1. Publish Unaltered

If the Editorial recommends “Reject,” the authors are sent the observations of the editorial meeting and are notified that their manuscript will no longer be considered for publication in the journal.

The following steps are involved in the review process of the journal:

  1. The author incorporates the suggestions of the editorial meeting.
  2. The revised manuscript is submitted through OJS to the journal.
  3. The manuscript is sent to two reviewers for blind peer review.
  4. The suggestions received from peer reviews are sent to the author/authors through OJS.
  5. The Authors submit the revised manuscript to the journal within a week.
  6. The journal processes the manuscript for further stages of publication.

 

  1. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers’ selection is the most important and crucial process of the review of the articles. The selection of reviewers depends on the knowledge and expertise in the field of early childhood education and their skills in reviewing and analyzing manuscripts.

  1. Language of the Peer Review Report

The English language is used to communicate the peer review report by the reviewers. The Editor makes sure that the language of the report is clear and understandable. Ambiguous terms are avoided while communicating the report to the journal. The reviewers convey his/her suggestions in a respectable way to the author.

  1. Timeline

It is essential for reviewers to follow the timeline which is assigned to them by the editor of the journal and complete the review of the manuscript within that time. Following the timeline by the reviewers will facilitate the publishing of the issue of the journal within its due time.

The following timeline is adopted for JECCE articles process.

  1. Confidentiality

The reviewers are bound to keep the confidentiality of the peer review of the manuscript. They are not allowed to:

  • Disclose the information included in the manuscript.
  • Use the information for their own advantage or disadvantage.
  • Involve any other in peer review without permission of the Journal of the journal.
  • Direct contact to authors for the manuscript which is for review with them.

 

  1. Bias and competing interests

It is important for reviewers to remain unbiased while reviewing the manuscript. Their review should not be biased in terms of nationality, race, gender, religion, or political beliefs. If the reviewer has not enough competency to review the manuscript or having any conflict with the ideas included in the research which prevent him from unbiased review, in this case he or she should contact to the journal without any delay for refusal. This action on the part of the reviewers will avoid unduly delay of the review process.

  1. Suspicion of ethics violations

If the reviewers came to know about any irregularity in the manuscript such as any misconduct in the research or in its writing, or any similarity between any other published article with the one which is funder review. In such case or any other ethical concerns, the reviewers are not allowed to investigate by their own, but they must inform the journal immediately.

  1. Transferability of Peer Review

This section deals with the transfers of peer review. If the reviewers receive the same manuscript from any other journal for review as in some cases the article is rejected by one journal and the authors submit it in another journal. If, in case the reviewer is assigned the same article for review by other journal, in this case the reviewer must take permission from the journal if he/she wants to submit the same review report again.