PEER REVIEWER PROCESS
Journal of Advances in Physics Education employs a single-blind review process, in which reviewers know the authors' identities but the authors do not know the reviewers' identities. Every submitted manuscript is evaluated by at least two reviewers with competence in physics education or related fields. This process aims to maintain the academic quality, originality, and credibility of published papers. The peer review procedure follows these stages:
- Submission of Paper
Manuscripts are submitted through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS). For added flexibility, email submissions are temporarily permitted. - Editorial Office Assessment
The editor evaluates the manuscript for alignment with the journal's focus and scope, compliance with author guidelines, and adherence to minimum quality standards. Manuscripts passing this assessment are then screened for similarity using Turnitin. - Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript's originality, significance, and relevance to physics education. Manuscripts not meeting these criteria may be rejected without further review. - Invitation to Reviewers
The handling editor selects and invites qualified reviewers based on their expertise, alignment with the research, and absence of conflicts of interest. In the single-blind review process, reviewers know the authors' identities, while authors do not know the reviewers' identities. - Response to Invitations
Invited reviewers evaluate their availability and expertise before accepting or declining the invitation. Those who decline may recommend alternative reviewers. - Review is Conducted
Reviewers conduct a thorough evaluation of the manuscript, provide detailed feedback, and recommend acceptance, major or minor revision, or rejection. - Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The editor and Editor-in-Chief review all reports submitted by reviewers. If substantial discrepancies are identified, an additional reviewer may be consulted. - The Decision is Communicated
The editorial team communicates the decision and anonymous reviewer comments to the author. Reviewers are also informed of the final outcome. - Final Steps
Accepted manuscripts advance to copy-editing. For revisions, authors are required to resubmit the revised manuscript along with responses to reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by reviewers or the handling editor. Upon final approval, the paper is accepted and published online as an open-access PDF.
Special Notes:
For articles requiring only minor revisions, the journal maintains an efficient and rigorous review process, targeting completion of the entire workflow from submission to online publication within four weeks. However, this expedited schedule represents the minimum possible turnaround time and does not compromise the thoroughness or rigor of the peer-review standards. All manuscripts, regardless of revision category, are subject to meticulous evaluation to ensure methodological soundness, substantive contribution, and clarity of presentation. The editorial team and reviewers are committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and accept only manuscripts that meet stringent quality benchmarks. The review process may extend beyond the target timeframe if additional evaluation or further revisions are needed to maintain the journal's quality assurance standards.
For articles requiring only minor revisions, the journal maintains an efficient and rigorous review process, targeting completion of the entire workflow from submission to online publication within four weeks. However, this expedited schedule represents the minimum possible turnaround time and does not compromise the thoroughness or rigor of the peer-review standards. All manuscripts, regardless of revision category, are subject to meticulous evaluation to ensure methodological soundness, substantive contribution, and clarity of presentation. The editorial team and reviewers are committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and accept only manuscripts that meet stringent quality benchmarks. The review process may extend beyond the target timeframe if additional evaluation or further revisions are needed to maintain the journal's quality assurance standards.