PEER REVIEW POLICY
The journal “Art and Education” considers peer review to be a key instrument for ensuring the scholarly quality of publications and maintaining academic standards. The Editorial Board proceeds from the understanding that independent expert evaluation is essential for ensuring the reliability, originality, and scholarly significance of published research.
The journal’s peer review policy is based on the principles of objectivity, impartiality, confidentiality, and compliance with international ethical standards, in particular the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Decisions regarding publication are made solely on the basis of the manuscript’s content, its scholarly merit, and its relevance to the journal’s scope.
The journal employs a double-blind peer review model, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This approach minimizes the potential influence of personal, institutional, or other non-scholarly factors on the evaluation process.
Stages of Peer Review
Initial screening. Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes a preliminary editorial assessment. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for its relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with submission requirements, overall academic quality, and is screened for potential plagiarism using appropriate software tools.
If significant discrepancies with the journal’s scope, violations of academic integrity, or failure to meet basic quality criteria are identified, the manuscript may be rejected without external peer review. Such decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the Editorial Board, provided that no conflict of interest exists.
Manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Board or individuals involved in the editorial process are handled through a special procedure that excludes any potential influence on the evaluation process. In such cases, independent editors without professional or administrative ties to the author are responsible for managing the review and decision-making process.
Peer review process. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are submitted for independent expert review.
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant field and their publication record related to the manuscript’s topic. They must have no conflict of interest with the authors. Reviewers may include both members of the Editorial Board and independent external experts.
Peer review is typically completed within 14 to 30 days, depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the editorial schedule.
The review process focuses not only on formal compliance but primarily on the scholarly quality of the work, including the relevance of the topic, originality, methodological soundness, logical coherence of the argument, validity of conclusions, and proper use of sources. Where necessary – particularly in cases of conflicting reviews – the Editorial Board may seek an additional independent expert opinion.
Following the review, anonymized comments and recommendations are provided to the author. If revisions are required, the manuscript is returned for improvement. The author is expected to address the reviewers’ comments or provide a reasoned response. In cases of substantial revision, the manuscript may be submitted for a second round of peer review.
Editorial Decision
The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board based on the reviewers’ reports. In addition to formal compliance, the overall scholarly contribution of the manuscript is taken into account.
The Editorial Board may reach one of the following decisions:
- accept for publication – if the manuscript meets the journal’s academic and editorial standards and requires no substantial revisions;
- accept with minor revisions – provided that the author addresses the reviewers’ comments;
- revise and resubmit (with further review) – if substantial improvements are required, after which the manuscript undergoes additional evaluation;
- reject – if the manuscript does not meet the journal’s scholarly standards, falls outside its scope, or contains significant ethical violations or other deficiencies that cannot be corrected.
Ethical Standards for Reviewers
Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality of scholarly publications and are expected to adhere to high standards of professional ethics. Reviews should be conducted objectively, constructively, and with academic integrity.
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, must not use the information contained therein for personal advantage, and are expected to report any suspected ethical misconduct to the Editorial Board. In the event of a conflict of interest, reviewers must decline to participate in the review process.
Transparency and Quality Control
The Editorial Board places particular emphasis on the transparency of editorial procedures. All stages of the peer review process are documented, and reviewer reports are retained in the editorial archive.
In cases where authors are members of the Editorial Board or otherwise involved in the editorial process, special procedures are applied to ensure the integrity and independence of editorial decisions.
Communication with Authors
The Editorial Board ensures регуляр communication with authors and informs them about the outcome of each stage of the review process. Reviewer comments are provided to authors to facilitate revision and improve the overall quality of submitted manuscripts.
