Review of Multidisciplinary Education, Culture and Pedagogy is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. To protect the integrity of the double-blind process, every effort must be made to prevent the identities of the authors and the reviewers from being known to each other. This applies to authors, editors, and reviewers (including when they upload documents as part of a review). Correspondence and published corrections may also be peer reviewed at the editors’ discretion.

Workflow

Every manuscript follows these stages: Submission, Initial Check, Peer Review, Final Check, Editing and Proofreading, and Publication. See also the Publication Timeline.

Initial Check

After a paper is submitted, a journal editor screens the manuscript and decides whether to send it for full peer review. The check covers fit with the journal’s Focus and Scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines and the Manuscript Template, completeness of the required declarations, and similarity (see Plagiarism Screening). Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected before peer review. Only manuscripts that pass this stage are sent to reviewers.

In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding that is likely to influence thinking in the field.

Type of Peer Review

Submitted manuscripts are generally reviewed by two experts. Additional reviewers may be appointed where necessary. The journal uses double-blind peer review.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates previously published work, and whether it is sufficiently clear for publication. Further rounds of review may be conducted if the first round is inadequate. A second review is started only if the first is inadequate, and the editor then makes the final decision.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. Reviewers are chosen mainly for subject expertise, recent publication record, methodological competence, institutional independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest. The Editorial Team also considers reviewers’ reputation, specific recommendations, and its own experience of a reviewer’s reliability, for example whether the reviewer responds on time and gives reasoned comments. Preference may be given to reviewers with a verifiable scholarly profile (such as a Scopus Author ID, ORCID, or Google Scholar profile). These supporting criteria do not replace the primary requirements of expertise, competence, and independence.

Potential reviewers are contacted before a manuscript is sent to them. A reviewer may decline a manuscript that does not match their field or expertise.

Timeliness

The journal is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, because an efficient process is a service to authors and to the scientific community. Reviewers are asked to respond within two weeks. If a reviewer expects a delay, they should inform the journal so that authors can be kept informed and, where necessary, an alternative reviewer can be found. In general, the journal aims to inform authors of the review result within two-four weeks.

Review Reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

• is original, with clearly stated objectives and research gap;
• is methodologically sound;
• follows appropriate ethical guidelines;
• presents results and findings clearly and supports its conclusions with them; and
• correctly refers to previous relevant work.

Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of peer review.

Revision

When revision is requested, authors must revise the manuscript. The revised manuscript may be reassessed by the editor or, where necessary, returned to the reviewers. After the revisions, the manuscript undergoes a final check to confirm that the comments were adequately addressed and that the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, editorial, ethical, and submission requirements.

Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, and AI

All correspondence and manuscripts under review are confidential and must be treated as such. Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest and decline the review if one exists (see the Conflict of Interest policy). Reviewers must not delegate a review without the editor’s permission, and must not use generative AI to assess manuscripts or to prepare review reports (see the AI Policy and Publication Ethics).

Decision

Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The editors reach a decision based on the reviewers’ reports, the authors’ revisions, and the scholarly quality of the manuscript and, where necessary, consult members of the Editorial Board. The editor’s decision is final, subject to the appeal procedure described in Publication Ethics. The publisher does not interfere with editorial decisions (see the Journal Independence Statement).

Publication

For articles declared acceptable for publication after editorial and peer review, the Editorial Team issues a Decision Letter that contains the publication decision and the article publication fee invoice (see Author Fees). Accepted manuscripts then proceed to editing and proofreading, and the authors approve the galley proof before publication. Payment of fees does not influence peer review or editorial decisions.