Peer Review

Social & Educational Lens ensures a rigorous, transparent, and confidential evaluation process through a single-blind peer review system. In this model, reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, but authors do not know who the reviewers are, ensuring impartial assessment of manuscripts.

The editorial management and review process are carried out using Open Journal Systems (OJS), which guarantees structured manuscript tracking, efficient communication among stakeholders, and adherence to quality standards in scientific publishing.

To maintain the integrity of the process, authors must submit a cover letter including author information and a statement of originality. This information is accessible only to the editorial team and is not shared with reviewers.

Stages of the Evaluation Process

  1. Manuscript Submission
    • Authors submit via the OJS platform.
    • A cover letter with author data is attached (not visible to reviewers).
    • Editorial compliance is checked based on "Author Guidelines".
  2. Preliminary Editorial Review
    • The Editorial Board assesses thematic relevance, originality, and formal quality.
    • Similarity detection software is used to prevent plagiarism.
    • If basic criteria are not met, the manuscript is rejected without resubmission.
  3. Assignment of External Reviewers
    • Manuscripts are sent to two external reviewers with expertise in the subject area.
    • Reviewers must hold a master’s or doctoral degree and have significant research experience.
  4. Double-Blind Peer Review
    • Reviewers evaluate manuscripts anonymously and provide feedback and recommendations.
    • Evaluation criteria include:
      • Originality and contribution to knowledge
      • Methodological rigor and scientific validity
      • Relevance and impact in the field
      • Clarity and coherence in presentation
  5. Editorial Decision
    • Accepted without changes
    • Accepted with minor revisions (no further review)
    • Accepted with major revisions (requires second review)
    • Rejected (does not meet journal standards)
    • In case of discrepancy, a third reviewer will be appointed
  6. Reviewer Feedback to Authors
    • Anonymous reviewer comments are sent via OJS.
    • Authors have 15 days to submit the revised version.
  7. Evaluation and Review Rounds
    • The Editorial Board checks if reviewer suggestions were implemented.
    • If required, additional rounds are initiated with the same or new reviewers.
  8. Final Evaluation and Acceptance
    • The final version is reviewed for approval.
    • If changes are insufficient, the manuscript may be rejected.
  9. Editing and Online Publication
    • Editing and layout are completed, and a proof is sent to authors for typographic review.
    • Only typographic or formatting corrections are accepted.
    • The final article is published online under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Estimated Timeline

  • Preliminary editorial review: up to 7 days
  • Peer review: up to 21 days
  • Editorial decision: up to 14 days after reviews
  • Reviewer feedback to authors: within 7 days
  • Author revisions: up to 15 days
  • Final review: up to 7 days
  • Editing and publishing: up to 14 days
  • Total estimated time: 66–75 days (9–10 weeks)

Traceability and Transparency

The entire process is managed through OJS, allowing authors and reviewers to track manuscript status securely and systematically. Direct communication between authors and reviewers is not allowed to preserve objectivity.

Researchers of any nationality with expertise in the journal’s fields may join the International Review Committee, subject to approval by the Editorial Board.

Commitment to Editorial Quality

  • Applying international peer review standards
  • Ensuring fairness through double-blind review
  • Maintaining transparency via OJS traceability
  • Meeting efficient turnaround times for scientific dissemination