Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Journal of Educational Computing and Technology (JECOTECH)

The Journal of Educational Computing and Technology (JECOTECH) applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific validity, and relevance of all published manuscripts. In this review model, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept anonymous throughout the review process to ensure impartiality and fairness.

Each submitted manuscript undergoes the following stages:

  1. Initial Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS). The manuscript must comply with the journal's Author Guidelines, formatting requirements, and ethical standards.

  1. Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor conducts an initial evaluation to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Fits the journal's aims and scope;
  • Meets the journal's formatting and submission requirements;
  • Demonstrates sufficient scientific quality and originality;
  • Complies with publication ethics;
  • Passes plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without external review.

  1. Plagiarism Screening

All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software before entering the peer-review process. Manuscripts with unacceptable levels of text similarity, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other ethical concerns will be rejected in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics.

  1. Assignment to Associate Editor

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to an Associate Editor based on the subject area and expertise. The Associate Editor oversees the review process and selects appropriate reviewers.

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's topic.

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on several criteria, including:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Scientific contribution
  • Research methodology
  • Technical accuracy
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Quality of analysis and discussion
  • Relevance to the journal's scope
  • Quality of references
  • Ethical compliance

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  1. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Request major revisions
  • Reject

When reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor may invite an additional reviewer before making the final decision.

  1. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests should submit:

  • A revised manuscript.
  • A detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation if necessary.

  1. Final Acceptance

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after confirming that all reviewer comments have been adequately addressed and that the manuscript satisfies the journal's quality standards.

  1. Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting, language editing (when necessary), layout editing, proofreading, metadata preparation, DOI registration, and final production before publication.

  1. Online Publication

The final version of the article is published online as part of the scheduled issue and becomes freely accessible under the journal's Open Access policy.

Peer Review Principles

JECOTECH is committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, objective, and confidential review process. The journal adheres to the following principles:

  • Double-blind review.
  • At least two independent reviewers for every manuscript.
  • Confidential handling of all submitted manuscripts.
  • Objective and evidence-based reviewer evaluations.
  • Editorial decisions based solely on academic merit.
  • No discrimination based on nationality, gender, race, religion, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs.
  • Management of conflicts of interest among authors, editors, and reviewers.

Average Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the editorial process within the following timeframe:

Stage

Estimated Time

Initial Editorial Screening

5–7 days

Reviewer Assignment

3–5 days

Peer Review

3–4 weeks

Author Revision

2–4 weeks

Final Editorial Decision

1 week

Copyediting and Production

1–2 weeks

The average time from manuscript submission to publication is approximately 8–12 weeks, depending on the quality of the manuscript and the responsiveness of the authors and reviewers.

Ethical Commitment

All editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to uphold the highest standards of publication ethics in accordance with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Confidentiality, objectivity, academic integrity, and ethical conduct are maintained throughout the entire peer-review process.