Peer Review Process

Paedanomia: Journal of Economics Education Research upholds scientific integrity through the implementation of an independent, accountable, and ethical peer-review system. The entire process is conducted digitally via the Open Journal System (OJS) platform.

Overview

Every manuscript submitted to Paedanomia undergoes a series of structured evaluation stages before it can be accepted for publication. This process is designed to maintain the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of every article published in the journal. The editorial team serves as the initial gateway to ensure that manuscripts meet the minimum standards before being forwarded to expert reviewers.

Paedanomia employs a double-blind peer-review system, a mechanism in which the identity of the author(s) is not disclosed to the reviewers, and conversely, the identity of the reviewers is not revealed to the author(s). This approach is applied to guarantee the objectivity of the evaluation process and to prevent any form of bias in the assessment.

Stages of the Review Process

2.1 Initial Screening by the Editor (Desk Review)

Upon receipt of a manuscript through the OJS platform, the managing editor will conduct an initial screening (desk review) within a maximum of 7–14 working days. This stage involves an evaluation of the following:

• Alignment of the manuscript topic with the journal's focus and scope

• Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript template

• Completeness of the required structural components

• Similarity index based on anti-plagiarism software screening results

• Overall language quality and readability of the manuscript

Manuscripts that fail to meet one or more of the above criteria may be returned to the author(s) for revision prior to further processing, or may be immediately rejected if deemed incompatible with the journal's scope. Only manuscripts that pass this initial stage will be forwarded to the external peer-review process.

2.2 External Review by Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening will be assigned to a minimum of two peer reviewers who possess relevant expertise and qualifications in the subject area. Reviewers are carefully selected from among academics and practitioners who are independent of the authors' institutions. The review process is expected to be completed within 4–6 weeks.

Each reviewer is requested to provide a comprehensive evaluation covering the originality of ideas, depth of theoretical review, appropriateness of the methodology, validity of data and analysis, clarity of presentation, and the manuscript's scholarly contribution to the development of economics education. Reviewer feedback is submitted in written form and serves as the primary basis for editorial decisions.

2.3 Editorial Decision

Based on the recommendations provided by the peer reviewers, the editor will determine a final decision on the manuscript. The possible editorial decisions are categorized as follows:

Manuscript Revision Process

When a manuscript requires revision, the author(s) must resubmit the revised manuscript through the OJS platform, accompanied by a response letter that provides a detailed explanation of every change made in response to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers and editor.

Revised manuscripts that are not returned within the stipulated deadline (14 working days for minor revisions, 30 working days for major revisions) will be considered withdrawn and the submission will be automatically closed. Author(s) who require an extension of time may submit a request to the editor, accompanied by a clear and valid reason.

Revised manuscripts will be re-evaluated by the editor, and if deemed necessary, may be returned to the original reviewers for confirmation that the required improvements have been adequately addressed. This process will continue until the manuscript is deemed suitable for publication.

Manuscript Rejection Criteria

A manuscript may be rejected either at the initial screening stage or following the peer-review process. Common grounds for rejection include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Scope incompatibility. The topic addressed falls outside the thematic scope of Paedanomia.

2. Non-compliance with guidelines. The manuscript does not conform to the format, structure, or writing style specified in the author guidelines.

3. Methodological weaknesses. The research design, data collection procedures, or analytical methods contain fundamental flaws.

4. Indication of plagiarism. The text similarity index exceeds the established threshold of 20% similarity with other sources.

5. Lack of originality. The manuscript does not present a new, significant, or relevant scholarly contribution to the field of economics education.

6. Inadequate language quality. The writing contains an excessive number of grammatical, lexical, or spelling errors that impede comprehension of the manuscript's content.

Ethical Commitment in the Review Process

Paedanomia is fully committed to upholding fair, transparent, and ethical review practices throughout the entire publication process. All procedures are conducted in accordance with the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as the international standard for scientific publication integrity.

• The confidentiality of both author and reviewer identities is strictly maintained throughout the entire process.

• Any conflict of interest between a reviewer and an author must be declared and addressed by the editor.

• Reviewers are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and are not permitted to use any information contained therein for personal benefit.

• Authors have the right to formally appeal if they believe the review process was conducted in an unfair or disproportionate manner.

For further inquiries regarding manuscript status or the peer-review process, authors may contact the editorial team via the journal's official email address or through the messaging feature on the Paedanomia OJS platform.