Peer Review Process

The Elementary Journal (TEJ) applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts submitted for publication. The process is designed to support objective editorial decisions, maintain academic integrity, and promote the dissemination of high-quality research in basic education and early childhood education.

All manuscripts submitted to TEJ are subject to editorial screening and, when considered suitable, independent evaluation by qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter.

1. Initial Submission and Administrative Screening

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial examination to determine whether the manuscript satisfies the journal's basic submission requirements.

The initial screening covers:

  1. Compliance with the journal's focus and scope.

  2. Completeness of submission files and metadata.

  3. Compliance with the official manuscript template and formatting requirements.

  4. Adequacy of the abstract, keywords, and manuscript structure.

  5. Compliance with the journal's citation and referencing style.

  6. Availability of relevant ethical declarations and supporting documents, where applicable.

  7. Anonymization of the manuscript for double-blind peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for technical corrections before further consideration.

2. Editorial Screening

Following administrative screening, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates the manuscript's suitability for the journal.

The editorial assessment considers:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

  • Originality and significance of the research.

  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives.

  • Appropriateness of the theoretical framework and literature review.

  • Adequacy and transparency of the research methodology.

  • Relevance of the findings and strength of the discussion.

  • Potential contribution to educational research, policy, or practice.

  • Compliance with publication ethics and academic integrity requirements.

The editor may reject a manuscript at this stage if it falls outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient scholarly merit, presents substantial methodological weaknesses, or fails to comply with essential publication requirements.

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening proceed to external peer review.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

TEJ uses a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process.

Manuscripts considered suitable for review are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers, in accordance with the journal's stated review policy. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and familiarity with the subject matter of the submitted manuscript.

Before the manuscript is sent for review, the editorial team takes reasonable steps to remove identifying information from the review file.

Authors must likewise ensure that their manuscript does not disclose their identities through author information, acknowledgments, file properties, or other identifying details.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, confidentially, and constructively. They must disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartial assessment cannot be maintained.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts using criteria appropriate to the manuscript type and research design.

The principal evaluation criteria include:

4.1. Originality and Contribution

The manuscript presents an original contribution to knowledge and addresses a relevant issue in basic education or early childhood education.

4.2. Research Problem and Literature Review

The research problem is clearly formulated, supported by relevant literature, and connected to an identifiable research gap or scholarly question.

4.3. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundation is appropriate to the research objectives and is used meaningfully to guide the analysis and interpretation.

4.4. Methodological Rigor

The research design, participants or data sources, instruments, procedures, and analytical methods are appropriate, sufficiently explained, and scientifically defensible.

4.5. Results and Discussion

The findings are presented clearly, supported by adequate evidence, and interpreted in relation to the research questions and relevant literature.

4.6. Conclusions and Implications

The conclusions follow from the findings and provide meaningful implications for educational theory, policy, or practice.

4.7. References and Academic Writing

The manuscript uses relevant and credible scholarly sources, follows the journal's IEEE referencing style, and demonstrates clarity, coherence, and appropriate academic language.

4.8. Research Ethics

The manuscript demonstrates appropriate attention to research integrity, participant protection, ethical approval where required, informed consent, and responsible data reporting.

Reviewers may also provide specific recommendations for improving the manuscript's structure, analysis, presentation, and scholarly contribution.

5. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's independent assessment, the journal may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication without substantive revision, subject to any necessary editorial preparation.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially publishable after limited corrections or clarifications. Authors must address the editor's and reviewers' comments before final acceptance.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial revision to address significant concerns regarding its theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Reject

The manuscript is not accepted for publication because it does not meet the journal's requirements for scope, originality, methodological rigor, scholarly contribution, or publication ethics.

A revision decision does not guarantee acceptance. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations and the quality of the revised manuscript.

6. Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a revision decision must revise their manuscripts in accordance with the editorial decision and reviewer comments.

A revised submission should include:

  1. A revised manuscript that clearly incorporates the required changes.

  2. A point-by-point response to the editor's and reviewers' comments.

  3. A clear explanation for any recommendation that the authors do not adopt, supported by an appropriate scholarly rationale.

Authors should ensure that all revisions preserve research integrity and accurately represent the study's data and findings.

The editorial office may request additional clarification or send the revised manuscript for another round of peer review when necessary.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified deadline, without an approved extension, may result in the manuscript being closed or treated as withdrawn in accordance with editorial procedures.

7. Review Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal advantage or research purposes without appropriate authorization.

Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationship that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.

Editors are responsible for managing potential conflicts of interest and arranging alternative editorial handling when necessary.

The journal seeks to ensure that editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit rather than personal relationships, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, religious background, or other irrelevant considerations.

8. Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

TEJ expects authors, reviewers, and editors to observe recognized standards of responsible scholarly publishing.

Manuscripts may be rejected or subjected to further investigation if there is credible evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, falsified results, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of publication misconduct.

When ethical concerns arise, the journal may request explanations, supporting documents, or corrections. Appropriate editorial action will be taken in accordance with the journal's policies and applicable publication ethics principles.

For further information, authors and reviewers may consult the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

9. Review Timeline

The duration of peer review may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional assessment, and the time required for author revisions.

The editorial office aims to process submissions efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of the review process.

Authors can monitor the status of their submissions through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) portal.

Specific review and decision timeframes should be communicated by the editorial office or published separately once the journal has established and verified its operational targets.

10. Post-Acceptance Procedures

Manuscripts accepted for publication proceed to editorial preparation, copyediting, proofreading, and final metadata verification.

Authors may be asked to verify the accuracy of their names, affiliations, article titles, references, tables, figures, and other publication details.

Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are assigned or registered where applicable through the journal's publishing arrangements.

Acceptance for publication is subject to the completion of the journal's editorial and production requirements.

11. Final Editorial Authority

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for publication decisions. Reviewer recommendations constitute an important part of the evaluation process but do not automatically determine the outcome.

All decisions are expected to reflect the manuscript's scholarly quality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field.

TEJ is committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, confidential, and academically rigorous peer review process that supports the advancement of research in basic education and early childhood education.