Peer Review

Psychology, Education, and Human Development in Schools uses a rigorous double-blind anonymous peer-review process. Under this model, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.

After submission, each manuscript first undergoes an initial editorial assessment. During this stage, the editorial team evaluates whether the manuscript falls within the journal's aims and scope, complies with submission requirements, demonstrates an acceptable level of academic and methodological quality, and satisfies basic ethical and scholarly standards. Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the scope of the journal or do not meet minimum editorial requirements may be declined without external peer review.

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are normally sent to two or three independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, research experience, methodological competence, and absence of inappropriate conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate relevant aspects of the manuscript, including originality, theoretical significance, methodological rigor, appropriateness of research design and analysis, quality of interpretation, clarity of presentation, adequacy of the literature review, ethical considerations, and the contribution of the study to psychology, education, human development, or school-related scholarship.

Following peer review, reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. Where revisions are requested, authors are normally expected to provide a revised manuscript together with a clear response addressing reviewer and editorial comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when additional expert evaluation is necessary.

The final publication decision is made by the journal's editorial authority after consideration of the reviewers' reports, the authors' responses, the quality of revisions, and the manuscript's overall scholarly merit. Reviewer recommendations provide essential expert guidance, but the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal.

The journal seeks to ensure that peer review is constructive, confidential, impartial, and based on academic criteria. Reviewers are expected to treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.

Where a reviewer identifies a potential conflict of interest that could compromise objective evaluation, the reviewer should decline the invitation or inform the editorial office.

The journal may appoint an additional reviewer when initial reports differ substantially, when specialized methodological expertise is needed, or when further assessment is necessary to reach a well-supported editorial decision.