Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

 

Journal of Quality Assurance and Higher Education Governance

The journal applies a double-blind peer review system to promote fair, independent, and constructive scholarly evaluation. Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

1. Type of Peer Review

The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This approach is intended to minimize potential bias related to authorship, institutional affiliation, and professional relationships.

Reviewers are selected according to their expertise, scholarly experience, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

2. Peer Review Workflow

Stage 1. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team checks the manuscript's scope, completeness, formatting, anonymization, basic scholarly quality, and potential plagiarism or inappropriate text overlap.

Target duration: 3–7 working days.

Stage 2. Reviewer Assignment

The editor invites at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline if they cannot provide an impartial assessment.

Target duration: 7–14 calendar days.

Stage 3. Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers assess originality, theoretical foundation, research methodology, results, discussion, ethical integrity, and theoretical or practical contributions to quality assurance and higher education governance.

Target duration: 14–21 calendar days.

Stage 4. Editorial Decision

The editor considers the reviewers' reports and determines whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Conflicting reports may require clarification or an additional review.

Target duration: 3–7 working days after sufficient reports are received.

Stage 5. Revision and Re-evaluation

Authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to reviewer comments. The editor may send the revision back to the original reviewers or assess it directly.

Target duration: 7–21 calendar days for re-evaluation.

3. Editorial Decisions

Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and editorial standards.

Minor Revision: Limited corrections or clarifications are required.

Major Revision: Substantial improvements are required before further consideration. Acceptance is not guaranteed.

Reject: Fundamental weaknesses, insufficient originality, lack of relevance, or unresolved ethical concerns prevent publication.

4. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Confidentiality

Reviewers must protect manuscript confidentiality and must not use unpublished information for personal advantage or upload manuscripts to external platforms or generative AI tools without authorization and appropriate safeguards.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartial evaluation cannot be assured.

Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviews must be respectful, evidence-based, and focused on scholarly merit. Reviewers should provide clear recommendations and avoid personal, discriminatory, or irrelevant comments.

5. Estimated Timeline

Stage Estimated Duration
Initial screening 3–7 working days
Reviewer assignment 7–14 calendar days
Initial review 14–21 calendar days
Minor revision by authors 14 calendar days
Major revision by authors 28 calendar days
Re-evaluation 7–21 calendar days

The journal aims to communicate an initial decision within approximately 4–6 weeks for manuscripts proceeding to external peer review. The total time to a final decision may be 8–16 weeks or longer when revisions and additional review rounds are required. These timeframes are indicative targets, not guarantees.

6. Editorial Independence and Transparency

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, and publication ethics. Editors must disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest. Manuscripts involving an editor with a relevant conflict must be handled by an independent editor.

The journal maintains appropriate records of submissions, reviewer reports, editorial decisions, and author responses. Potential publication misconduct is assessed through appropriate editorial procedures. The journal periodically reviews its policies to maintain alignment with recognized scholarly publishing standards, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).