Quick Navigation
Overview
Review Process
Reviewer Guidelines
Review Rounds
Editorial Decisions
Timeline

Peer Review Process

About the Peer Review Process

The Chokie Journal of Education and Behavioral Studies (CJEBS) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic quality and integrity. Our review process is designed to provide constructive feedback to authors while maintaining the confidentiality and objectivity of the evaluation.

Key Features of Our Review Process
1
Double-Blind Review

Neither reviewers nor authors know each other's identities, ensuring unbiased evaluation.

2
Expert Evaluation

Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two experts with academic rank of assistant professor or above.

3
Constructive Feedback

Reviewers provide detailed, constructive comments to help authors improve their work.

Review Process Overview

1
Initial Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through our online system, ensuring they meet formatting and scope requirements.

2
Editorial Check

The editorial team verifies that the manuscript meets submission guidelines and scope before sending for review.

3
Reviewer Assignment

At least two qualified reviewers are assigned based on their expertise in the relevant discipline.

4
Double-Blind Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript without knowing author identities, and authors don't know reviewer identities.

5
Decision Making

Based on reviewer recommendations, the editorial board makes one of three possible decisions.

Reviewer Guidelines and Responsibilities

  • Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Reviewers are not expected to provide thorough language editing or copyediting, but should focus on scientific quality.
  • If a manuscript requires language editing, reviewers should inform both the author(s) and the editor in their report.
  • Reviewers are asked to be polite and constructive in their reports.
  • Reviewers must complete the evaluation format adequately to help the editorial board make informed decisions.
  • All information regarding papers must be kept confidential and treated as privileged information.
  • Reviewers should alert editors to any substantial similarity or overlap with other published papers.
Note: Manuscripts will be kept with reviewers for a maximum of two weeks from acceptance of the review assignment.

Review Rounds

1
First Review Round

Intense and detailed review requiring a definitive decision on the manuscript. Reviewers provide comprehensive feedback and recommendations.

2
Second Review Round

Reviewers evaluate whether the revised manuscript adequately addresses recommendations from the first round.

Timeline: The journal allows a maximum of two rounds of review for each manuscript.

Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer recommendations, the editorial board makes one of three possible decisions:

Accept with Minor Revisions

The article is conditionally accepted pending minor revisions. When the revised manuscript is returned, only the editor reviews it to ensure changes have been made.

  • Minor grammatical corrections
  • Clarification of specific points
  • Formatting adjustments
  • Citation corrections
Accept with Major Revisions

The article is conditionally accepted pending major revisions. When the author returns the revised manuscript, it goes through the peer review process again.

  • Substantial content reorganization
  • Additional data analysis required
  • Major methodological improvements needed
  • Significant literature review expansion
Note: Authors are encouraged to revise and re-submit, but there is no guarantee of acceptance if essential revisions are not met.
Reject

Manuscripts may be rejected for various reasons, including but not limited to:

  • Failure to meet the journal's scope
  • Inadequate methodology or analysis
  • Lack of originality or significant contribution
  • Poor writing quality that cannot be resolved through revision
Reconsideration: Rejected manuscripts may be reconsidered if authors provide compelling reasons why the decision may have been wrong and are willing to address all valid comments.

Review Timeline and Expectations

1
Initial Screening

1-3 days: Editorial check for scope and formatting requirements

2
Reviewer Assignment

1-2 weeks: Identifying and assigning appropriate reviewers

3
First Review Round

2 weeks: Reviewers complete their evaluation within the allocated time

4
Author Revision

4-6 weeks: Authors address reviewer comments and submit revised manuscript

5
Second Review Round

1-2 weeks: Review of revised manuscript and final decision

Total Estimated Time: The complete review process typically takes 8-12 weeks from submission to final decision.

Need More Information?

For questions about the peer review process or to become a reviewer, please contact our editorial team.

Contact Editorial Team Become a Reviewer Reviewer Evaluation Form