Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Publication of articles in INSPIRE: Journal of Innovation in Social Learning is based on scientific validity, methodological rigor, originality, and scholarly contribution, as assessed by the editors and peer reviewers. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their clarity, coherence, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

INSPIRE recognizes the essential role of peer reviewers in maintaining the academic integrity and quality of published articles. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments that assist authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts.

Reviewing Policies

  • Every submitted manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
  • INSPIRE applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.
  • The peer review process evaluates the manuscript’s originality, significance, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, ethical standards, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
  • Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts represent original work and are free from plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, and other forms of academic misconduct.
  • The editorial team aims to provide an initial editorial decision within approximately 2–4 weeks, subject to reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.
  • The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor makes the final publication decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the quality of the manuscript, and the journal’s editorial standards.
  • Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements may be rejected at any stage of the editorial process.
  • All editorial correspondence, review invitations, decisions, and revision requests are communicated through the journal’s official submission and editorial communication system.
  • Manuscripts receiving a revision decision must be revised in accordance with the comments and recommendations of the reviewers and editors before they can be considered for publication.

Initial Evaluation of Manuscripts

All manuscripts submitted to INSPIRE undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent for external peer review. The initial evaluation assesses the manuscript’s suitability in relation to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, academic relevance, methodological adequacy, manuscript structure, ethical compliance, and basic publication requirements.

At this stage, a manuscript may be rejected without external review if it:

  • lacks sufficient originality, novelty, or scholarly contribution;
  • contains substantial methodological, theoretical, or analytical weaknesses;
  • does not demonstrate adequate academic rigor;
  • falls outside the aims and scope of INSPIRE;
  • fails to meet the journal’s manuscript preparation and submission requirements; or
  • raises concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, research ethics, or other forms of academic misconduct.

Manuscripts that satisfy the initial screening criteria are forwarded to qualified reviewers for comprehensive evaluation.

Type of Peer Review

INSPIRE employs a double-blind peer review process. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field.

During the review process, reviewers are expected to assess:

  • the scientific and scholarly soundness of the manuscript;
  • the clarity and consistency of the research objectives and research questions;
  • the originality and significance of the study;
  • the adequacy of the theoretical and conceptual framework;
  • the appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;
  • the quality of data analysis and interpretation;
  • the clarity and organization of the manuscript;
  • the relevance and adequacy of references and citations;
  • the consistency between research findings, discussion, and conclusions; and
  • the manuscript’s overall contribution to social learning and education.

Reviewers should also identify substantial similarities or potential overlap with previously published work when such concerns are apparent.

Review Reports

Reviewers are requested to provide clear, objective, and constructive comments addressing the academic quality of the manuscript. In particular, reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Clearly defines the research problem, objectives, and research questions;
  • Identifies and addresses an appropriate research gap;
  • Demonstrates a sound and relevant theoretical or conceptual foundation;
  • Employs appropriate and rigorous research methods;
  • Provides sufficient information to support the validity and reliability of the findings;
  • Presents and interprets research results appropriately;
  • Establishes a logical relationship between findings, discussion, and conclusions;
  • Makes a clear and meaningful contribution to the field of social learning and education;
  • Uses relevant, credible, and sufficiently current scholarly references; and
  • Complies with applicable research ethics and academic integrity standards.

Reviewers are not expected to undertake detailed language editing or copyediting. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, clarity, grammar, academic style, and overall linguistic quality of their manuscripts.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s assessment, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept – the manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial adjustments.
  2. Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions before publication.
  3. Major Revision – substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.
  4. Reject – the manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is unsuitable for publication.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor. Reviewers provide recommendations, but the final decision is made independently by the editorial team based on the overall academic quality, relevance, and integrity of the manuscript.