Peer Review Policy

The European Journal of STEM Education (EJSTEME) uses a double-blind peer-review process, meaning that reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities. Authors are responsible for submitting an appropriately anonymized manuscript and removing identifying information from the manuscript, acknowledgements, file properties, and supplementary materials intended for peer review.

Peer review supports the quality and integrity of scholarly communication by providing independent evaluation of a manuscript's originality, relevance, research design, methodological rigor, interpretation of evidence, and contribution to STEM education. Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful assessments.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Every manuscript submitted to EJSTEME undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team before external peer review.

The initial assessment considers matters including:

• relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
• significance and originality of the work;
• relevance to STEM education research, policy, or practice;
• overall scholarly quality;
• adequacy and clarity of the manuscript;
• compliance with submission requirements;
• potential plagiarism, duplication, or inappropriate textual overlap;
• research and publication ethics;
• integrity of the reported research; and
• suitability for external peer review.

A manuscript may be declined at this stage if it falls outside the journal's scope, does not meet minimum scholarly or methodological expectations, substantially fails to comply with journal requirements, or presents significant ethical or research-integrity concerns. Only manuscripts considered suitable following editorial screening proceed to external peer review.

2. External Peer Review

Manuscripts proceeding beyond initial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area, methodology, educational context, or STEM discipline.

Reviewers are selected with consideration of:

• subject and methodological expertise;
• scholarly or professional qualifications;
• independence from the authors and their research;
• absence of relevant competing interests;
• previous reviewing or research experience, where appropriate; and
• ability to provide a rigorous, timely, and constructive evaluation.

The journal seeks independent external reviewers wherever practicable. An Editorial Board member may occasionally serve as a reviewer when their expertise is particularly relevant, provided that the individual is independent of the authors, has no relevant competing interest, and is not responsible for the editorial handling or final decision concerning that manuscript.

3. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or circumstance that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the independence of their assessment. Potential competing interests may include:

• recent or continuing collaboration with an author;
• employment at the same institution;
• supervisory or mentoring relationships;
• close personal or professional relationships;
• financial interests;
• significant academic disputes;
• direct professional competition; or
• other circumstances capable of compromising impartial judgment.

A reviewer who believes that a relevant conflict exists should decline the invitation or promptly inform the editorial office. When necessary, the editor will appoint another independent reviewer.

4. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of all information obtained through the review process.

Reviewers must not:

• distribute or forward the manuscript to another individual;
• disclose unpublished arguments, methods, data, results, or conclusions;
• use unpublished information for personal, academic, financial, or professional advantage;
• communicate directly with authors concerning the manuscript;
• disclose their identity to authors without authorization from the editorial office; or
• upload manuscripts, data, figures, tables, review reports, or other confidential materials to third-party systems where confidentiality, copyright, or data security cannot be adequately protected.

A reviewer wishing to consult another specialist or recommend a colleague must first obtain authorization from the editorial office. Confidential manuscripts must never be independently transferred to another person. Editors, Editorial Board members, Guest Editors, and editorial staff are subject to corresponding confidentiality obligations.

5. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play an important role in maintaining the scholarly standards of EJSTEME. They are expected to:

• evaluate manuscripts objectively and within their areas of expertise;
• provide specific, evidence-based, and constructive feedback;
• assess the appropriateness of the research design and methodology;
• consider whether interpretations and conclusions are supported by the evidence;
• identify significant theoretical, methodological, analytical, or reporting weaknesses;
• preserve confidentiality;
• disclose relevant competing interests;
• complete reviews within the requested timeframe;
• identify relevant literature that has been substantively overlooked when necessary;
• alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplication, fabrication, falsification, unethical research, or other potential misconduct; and
• communicate criticisms professionally and respectfully.

Reviewers must not:

• make personal, discriminatory, hostile, or derogatory comments;
• impose irrelevant personal, theoretical, methodological, ideological, or disciplinary preferences;
• use confidential information obtained through peer review for personal benefit;
• attempt to manipulate the editorial process;
• require authors to cite the reviewer's own publications without a legitimate scholarly reason; or
• recommend unnecessary citations for the purpose of increasing citations to EJSTEME, another Lectito journal, a reviewer, editor, author, institution, or publisher.
• Citation recommendations must be based exclusively on scholarly relevance. EJSTEME does not permit citation coercion or citation manipulation.

6. Criteria for Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to criteria appropriate to the manuscript type, research design, and methodological tradition.

Relevance and Scholarly Contribution

Reviewers should consider:

• Does the manuscript fit the aims and scope of EJSTEME?
• Does the study address an important question or issue in STEM education?
• Does it provide an original, meaningful, or useful contribution?
• Is the contribution relevant to an international readership interested in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or integrated STEM education?
• Does the manuscript engage appropriately with relevant and current scholarship?
• Are the implications for STEM education research, teaching, curriculum, policy, teacher education, or practice adequately developed where appropriate?

Research Problem and Literature

Reviewers should consider whether:

• the research problem, purpose, or objectives are clearly established;
• research questions or hypotheses are appropriately formulated where applicable;
• the literature review provides an adequate scholarly foundation;
• relevant prior research is accurately represented;
• the study's contribution in relation to existing knowledge is clear; and
• references are relevant and sufficiently current for the subject under investigation.

Reviewers should not request additional references solely to increase citations to particular authors, journals, or publishers.

Research Design and Methodology

For empirical manuscripts, reviewers should consider whether:

• the research design is appropriate to the research questions;
• the population, participants, sample, or data sources are adequately described;
• sampling procedures are appropriately explained;
• instruments and measures are suitable for the study;
• evidence concerning reliability and validity, trustworthiness, or other appropriate quality criteria is provided where relevant;
• data-collection procedures are sufficiently described;
• quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods analytical procedures are appropriate and transparent;
• findings are supported by the reported evidence;
• limitations are adequately acknowledged; and
• ethical requirements have been addressed.

EJSTEME welcomes quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, design-based, experimental, quasi-experimental, case-study, systematic-review, theoretical, and other appropriate approaches to STEM education research. Reviewers should evaluate a study according to standards appropriate to its methodology rather than impose criteria belonging to a different research tradition.

Findings, Interpretation, and Conclusions

Reviewers should consider whether:

• results or findings are presented clearly;
• tables, figures, statistical analyses, qualitative evidence, or other materials support the findings;
• interpretations are consistent with the evidence;
• conclusions do not substantially exceed what the study can support;
• alternative interpretations are considered where appropriate;
• limitations are transparently discussed; and
• implications are meaningful and appropriately connected to the findings.

Presentation and Scholarly Communication

Reviewers should consider whether:

• the manuscript is logically organized;
• the argument can be followed clearly;
• terminology is used appropriately;
• tables and figures contribute meaningfully to the presentation;
• references are relevant and complete; and
• the manuscript communicates the research sufficiently clearly for scholarly evaluation.

Reviewers should concentrate primarily on scholarly substance rather than copyediting. Language or formatting concerns may be identified when they materially affect understanding, but stylistic preferences should not replace substantive scholarly assessment.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should confidentially notify the editor if they identify possible concerns involving:

• plagiarism or unattributed material;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• fabrication or falsification;
• inappropriate manipulation of data or images;
• inadequate ethical oversight;
• research involving human participants without appropriate safeguards;
• deficiencies in informed consent;
• inappropriate treatment of children, students, or other vulnerable populations;
• breaches of privacy or confidentiality;
• undisclosed competing interests;
• authorship concerns;
• citation manipulation;
• peer-review manipulation; or
• other possible violations of the journal's Publication & Ethics Statement.

Reviewers should report such concerns to the editorial office rather than independently investigate them or contact the authors.

Timeliness of Reviews

Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within 4–6 weeks, where practicable.

A reviewer who requires additional time should contact the editorial office promptly. Reviewers who are unable to undertake the review within a reasonable period should decline the invitation so that another reviewer can be appointed.

EJSTEME does not guarantee unusually short review or publication times.

Reviewer Reports

A useful reviewer report should be:

• objective;
• constructive;
• specific;
• evidence-based;
• respectful;
• sufficiently detailed to explain the recommendation; and
• focused on issues that materially affect the manuscript's scholarly quality.

Unsupported judgments and generalized criticism should be avoided. Reviewers may communicate confidential information separately to the editor when necessary. However, the substantive reasons supporting a recommendation should normally be reflected in comments available to the authors.

The editorial office may withhold or remove reviewer comments containing abusive, discriminatory, defamatory, personally identifying, confidential, or otherwise inappropriate material before a report is communicated to authors.

Editorial Decisions

Following consideration of the reviewer reports and the editor's own assessment, one of the following decisions may be made:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to normal editorial and production requirements.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions. The editor may assess the revised version directly or seek additional reviewer input where appropriate.
• Major Revision: Substantive changes are required before further consideration. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers. A Major Revision decision does not constitute acceptance or guarantee eventual publication.
• Reject: The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in EJSTEME, or the concerns are sufficiently substantial that continued consideration within the existing review process is not appropriate.

Editorial Authority

Peer reviewers provide expert advice to the editorial team; reviewer recommendations do not independently determine publication decisions.

Editorial decisions may consider:

• originality and scholarly contribution;
• relevance to EJSTEME;
• methodological or theoretical rigor;
• quality and reliability of the evidence;
• reviewer assessments;
• research and publication ethics;
• research integrity; and
• the overall contribution to STEM education scholarship.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final editorial authority regarding acceptance or rejection. An editor is not required to follow a reviewer recommendation when the recommendation is inconsistent with the evidence, journal policies, ethical requirements, or the journal's scholarly scope.

Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors must not handle manuscripts when a relevant competing interest could compromise or reasonably appear to compromise their independence.

If the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, Editorial Board member, or Guest Editor is an author or contributor to a submitted manuscript, that individual will have no involvement in the manuscript's screening, reviewer selection, peer review, editorial deliberations, or final decision. The manuscript will instead be assigned to an independent qualified editor.

7. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Collections

Articles submitted to special issues are subject to the same editorial, ethical, and peer-review standards as regular submissions. Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening will normally undergo double-blind review by at least two independent reviewers.

Guest Editors may assist in coordinating a special issue, but they must:

• preserve manuscript confidentiality;
• disclose and appropriately manage competing interests;
• select suitably qualified and independent reviewers;
• avoid handling manuscripts where a conflict exists;
• apply the journal's scholarly and ethical standards consistently;
• avoid inappropriate or coercive citation requests; and
• comply with EJSTEME's Publication & Ethics Statement and other editorial policies.

Guest Editors cannot guarantee publication or circumvent the journal's normal review requirements. The Editor-in-Chief retains final oversight and editorial authority for all content published in special issues.

8. Appeals

Authors who believe that a significant procedural or scholarly error affected an editorial decision may submit an appeal.

An appeal should:

• identify the decision being challenged;
• clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration;
• respond to the principal editorial or reviewer concerns; and
• provide relevant scholarly evidence where appropriate.

An appeal should be based on substantive grounds rather than disagreement with an unfavorable decision alone. Appeals are normally considered by the Editor-in-Chief or, where independence requires it, another qualified editor who was not materially involved in the disputed decision. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or reversal of the original decision. Additional independent review may be obtained when appropriate.

9. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors have a duty to protect the confidentiality and intellectual property of unpublished submissions. Manuscripts, abstracts, figures, tables, datasets, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or other confidential submission materials must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative AI systems or other AI services where confidentiality, intellectual property rights, or data security cannot be assured.

AI systems cannot assume responsibility for peer-review judgments. Reviewers remain personally accountable for the accuracy, originality, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of their reports. Any use of AI-assisted technologies must comply with EJSTEME's separate Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.

10. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

Peer review at EJSTEME operates within the journal's broader Publication & Ethics Statement. Issues involving authorship, contributorship, conflicts of interest, funding, human-participant research, informed consent, confidentiality, vulnerable populations, research data, plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, complaints, corrections, retractions, and other research-integrity matters are governed by the journal's applicable publication-ethics policies. Where journal policies do not specifically resolve an ethical matter, EJSTEME may consult relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

11. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions at the European Journal of STEM Education are made independently of commercial, financial, institutional, or personal considerations. The publisher provides publishing and administrative support but does not determine whether an individual manuscript is accepted or rejected.

Article Processing Charges, waiver requests, advertising, sponsorship, institutional relationships, author affiliations, or other financial considerations have no influence on reviewer selection, peer-review outcomes, or editorial decisions. The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility and authority for editorial decisions