1. PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF PEER REVIEW

The peer-review process of the Journal of Science and Education (JSE) plays a critical role in ensuring the quality, reliability, and academic integrity of published research articles. The primary objectives of peer review are to:

Verify Research Validity

Evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the research content, including the appropriateness of the methodology, data analysis, and conclusions.

Assess Originality and Scientific Contribution

Determine the originality, significance, and potential contribution of the manuscript to the relevant research field.

Ensure Quality and Reproducibility

Evaluate whether the research methodology, results, and interpretations are clearly presented, scientifically sound, and sufficiently detailed to allow verification or replication where appropriate.

2. DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW PROCESS

JSE applies a double-blind peer-review process, meaning that:

• Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.
• Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

This process aims to ensure an objective, fair, and unbiased evaluation of manuscripts while minimizing potential conflicts of interest.

3. DETAILED PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Immediately after manuscript submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial check to ensure that the manuscript complies with the Journal's submission requirements, including formatting, structure, completeness of information, and other technical requirements.

After passing the initial screening, the manuscript is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for an initial assessment of its overall quality, originality, and suitability for the scope of the Journal. The assessment includes:

• Originality and novelty of the research.
• Relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the Journal.
• Compliance with the Journal's structure and formatting requirements.
• Plagiarism screening using appropriate plagiarism detection tools.

If the manuscript does not meet the basic requirements or is considered unsuitable for the Journal, it may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without external review.

For manuscripts that meet the initial requirements, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to an appropriate Handling Editor based on the subject area. The Handling Editor further evaluates the academic relevance and quality of the manuscript and may request additional clarification or revision before sending it for peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the required academic standards may be rejected at this stage.

Step 2: Selection of Reviewers

The Handling Editor, on behalf of the Editorial Board, invites at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript topic.

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

• Expertise: Reviewers should possess appropriate academic qualifications, research experience, and expertise relevant to the subject area.
• Independence: Reviewers must have no direct relationship with the authors and no conflicts of interest that could affect the objectivity of the review.
• Reviewing Experience: Reviewers should have experience in evaluating scientific manuscripts for academic journals at national or international levels.

Step 3: Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers receive the complete manuscript together with the Journal's review guidelines. The review process normally takes 2–4 weeks.

Reviewers are expected to:

Read and Evaluate the Manuscript

Reviewers should carefully read the entire manuscript to understand the research objectives, methodology, results, and overall scientific contribution.

Assess the Manuscript Based on the Following Criteria:

1. Originality and Significance of the Research:

Does the study address an important research problem and provide new knowledge or meaningful contributions to the field?

2. Research Methodology:

Are the research methods appropriate, clearly described, and scientifically valid? Are the data collection procedures and analytical approaches reliable?

3. Results and Discussion:

Are the results presented clearly and logically? Are the interpretations consistent with the data and supported by appropriate evidence?

4. Conclusions:

Are the conclusions justified by the findings and consistent with the objectives of the study?

5. Quality of Presentation:

Is the manuscript clearly organized and easy to follow? Are figures, tables, and illustrations presented appropriately and effectively?

Step 4: Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers provide detailed comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, required revisions, and specific recommendations to improve the quality of the work.

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further revision.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript may be accepted after the authors address minor issues.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revision before further consideration.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the scientific or editorial standards of the Journal.

Step 5: Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewers' comments and recommendations, makes the final decision regarding the manuscript.

Possible decisions include:

• Accept: The manuscript meets the Journal's quality standards and is approved for publication.
• Revision Required: The authors are requested to revise the manuscript according to reviewers' comments. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the Journal's requirements or falls outside the scope of the Journal.

Step 6: Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are required, authors are given a specified period to address reviewers' comments and resubmit the revised manuscript through the online submission system.

The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the original reviewers or other experts if deemed necessary by the Editorial Board.

If the revised manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the final stages of editorial processing, copyediting, and publication preparation.

4. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEWERS

Upon accepting an invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that they:

Have Appropriate Expertise

Reviewers should only accept manuscripts that fall within their areas of expertise and professional knowledge.

Provide Objective and Fair Evaluation

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, and independently, without being influenced by personal opinions, relationships, or other inappropriate factors.

Maintain Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not use unpublished information from manuscripts for personal advantage or disclose manuscript contents or author identities to others.

Meet Review Deadlines

Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the requested timeframe (normally 2–4 weeks). If they are unable to complete the review, they should promptly inform the Editorial Office so that alternative arrangements can be made.

5. ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

JSE requires all reviewers involved in the peer-review process to comply with ethical principles, including:

Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline review invitations if they have any personal, professional, academic, or financial relationships with the authors or the research that may affect their impartiality.

Respecting Authors' Intellectual Property

Reviewers must respect authors' intellectual property rights and must not copy, use, or distribute any part of the manuscript before publication.

Providing Honest and Responsible Reviews

Reviewers should provide accurate, constructive, and respectful comments. Reviews should focus on improving the scientific quality of the manuscript and should avoid any statements that could unfairly damage the reputation of authors or the Journal.

6. CONTACT INFORMATION

For any questions or support regarding the review process, reviewers may contact the Editorial Office:

• Email: tapchi@dhsphue.edu.vn
• Telephone: +84-234 3825004
• Address: Editorial Office of the Journal of Science and Education (JSE), University of Education, Hue University, 34 Le Loi Street, Hue City, Vietnam.