PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The international peer-reviewed journal Education in the 21st Century employs a double-blind peer review model: the identities of the authors and of the reviewers are kept confidential throughout the process. This ensures that a manuscript is judged on its merits, and not on the identity, institutional affiliation or geographical location of its authors. To make this possible, the manuscript is submitted as three separate files, only the anonymous one of which reaches the reviewers; the requirements are set out in the Instructions for Authors.

Stages of the process

1. Technical screening. On submission, every manuscript is screened by the Technical Editor for completeness of the submission package, anonymity, and compliance with the Instructions for Authors and the journal's Ethical Guidelines. Textual similarity is checked with iThenticate and Crossref Similarity Check. A manuscript that is not anonymised, that lacks a required file or declaration, or that departs substantially from the formatting requirements is returned to the author for correction before any review takes place.

2. Initial editorial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief considers whether the manuscript falls within the journal's aims and scope and meets a basic threshold of scholarly quality. Manuscripts outside the scope, or without sufficient scholarly merit, may be rejected at this stage without external review. The type of contribution declared by the author determines the standards against which the manuscript will subsequently be assessed.

3. External peer review. Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers, selected for their expertise in the subject area. Reviewers may not be from the same institution as any author, may not have co-authored with an author in the preceding three years, and must decline where any other competing interest exists. Reviewers work in accordance with the journal's Reviewer Guidelines and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Where two reports reach materially different conclusions, the Editor-in-Chief seeks a third review before deciding.

4. Editorial decision. On the basis of the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief takes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept — the manuscript is accepted in its present form.
  • Minor revision — limited technical, stylistic or clarifying changes are required; the revised version is normally assessed by the editor alone.
  • Major revision — substantial rewriting, further analysis or restructuring is required; the revised version is normally returned to the original reviewers for a second round.
  • Reject — the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

The reviewers' recommendations are advisory; the decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

5. Revision. Authors are asked to submit a revised version within 30 days of a minor revision decision and 60 days of a major revision decision, accompanied by a point-by-point response to every item of the reports, stating the change made and its location in the revised manuscript, or the reasoned grounds for disagreement. Reviewers invited to assess a revised version are asked to reply within 21 days.

6. Final approval. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief. Authors are notified by e-mail and receive the reviewers' reports, from which all identifying information has been removed.

Duration of the process

  • Technical screening and initial assessment: 1–2 weeks from submission.
  • External review, first round: 6–8 weeks; reviewers are given 45 days to complete their assessment.
  • From submission to final notification: approximately 3–4 months, depending on the number of revision rounds.

Manuscripts by editors and members of the editorial board

A manuscript submitted by an editor, a member of the editorial board or a member of staff is subject to the same review as any other, and its handling is delegated in full to an editor who has no connection with it and no competing interest. The author takes no part in the choice of reviewers or in any decision concerning the manuscript, and has no access to the editorial record of the submission.

Confidentiality and integrity

Manuscripts are privileged documents. Reviewers may not share a manuscript, use it for teaching, upload it or any part of it to generative artificial intelligence tools, or make use of its content before publication; these obligations continue after the decision. Competing interests must be disclosed before an invitation is accepted; the journal's rules are set out in its Publication Ethics, which follows the COPE Core Practices. Concerns about plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication, undisclosed use of generative artificial intelligence or research ethics arising at any stage are handled under the COPE flowcharts. Review reports and editorial correspondence are retained confidentially and are not published.

Appeals and complaints

Authors who consider that a decision rests on a misunderstanding or on a material error in a review may appeal by writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of notification, setting out the specific grounds point by point. The appeal is considered by an editor not involved in the original decision; a further review may be sought. The outcome of an appeal is final. Complaints about the conduct of the process, and any allegation of misconduct concerning the journal itself, are addressed to the Director of Yerevan State University Publishing House through the Contact page and are handled under the COPE Core Practices.