Peer Review Policy

Dibon Journal of Education (DJE) is committed to rigorous, fair, and constructive peer review as the foundation of its scholarly quality.

Review model. DJE operates a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are withheld from each other throughout the review.

Initial editorial screening. All submissions are first assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor for suitability, scope, originality, and adherence to the journal's author guidelines. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fall below its scholarly standard, or fail originality screening may be rejected at this stage without external review (desk rejection).

External review. Manuscripts that pass initial screening are sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers who have no conflict of interest with the work. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for originality and significance, theoretical and methodological soundness, clarity of argument, appropriate engagement with existing literature, ethical compliance, and overall contribution to the field.

Editorial decision. On the basis of the reviewers' reports, the handling editor recommends one of the following: accept; minor revisions; major revisions; reject. Where reviewers disagree substantially, the editor may seek an additional review. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Revisions. Authors are asked to respond to reviewer comments point by point and to submit a revised manuscript within the timeframe specified in the decision letter. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers.

Timeframe. DJE aims to provide an initial decision within approximately 3 weeks of submission. Timelines may vary with reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. See our metrics

Confidentiality. All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share, discuss, or use any part of a submitted manuscript. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts to public generative-AI tools, as doing so breaches confidentiality.

Reviewer conduct. Reviews must be objective, constructive, and free of personal criticism. Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest and decline where one exists. Reviewers should not recommend that authors cite the reviewer's own work for the purpose of increasing citations.

Appeals. Authors who believe a decision was reached in error may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final.