Sustainable and Pedagogical Technologies

Peer Review Process

Sustainable and Pedagogical Technologies (SPT) journal implements a rigorous double-blind peer-review procedure to ensure the academic quality, transparency, and fairness of the evaluation process for all submitted manuscripts. The review workflow is presented below:

1. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

Following submission, each manuscript is examined by the editorial team to determine whether it:

  • Aligns with the journal’s aims, scope, and thematic priorities related to sustainable educational practices.
  • Meets the technical and formal submission requirements, including structure, formatting, and ethical documentation.
  • Demonstrates sufficient linguistic clarity to proceed to external review.

Submissions that fall short of these criteria may be returned to authors for correction or declined at this stage.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts deemed suitable during preliminary assessment are assigned to a double-blind review process, ensuring anonymity between authors and reviewers. In this phase:

  • At least two experts with relevant subject-area specialization are invited to review the manuscript.
  • Reviewers evaluate the work based on criteria such as conceptual originality, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, relevance to sustainable pedagogy, and overall scholarly contribution.
  • Each reviewer provides analytical comments and constructive suggestions intended to support the improvement of the manuscript.

3. Editorial Decision Based on Reviews

After receiving reviewer reports, the handling editor determines one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept: The manuscript is approved for publication as submitted or with minimal adjustments.
  • Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required; authors are asked to address specific comments in a revised version.
  • Major Revision: Extensive improvements are needed, and the revised manuscript may undergo an additional round of review.
  • Reject: The submission does not meet the academic standards or thematic relevance of the journal.

Authors receive the editorial decision along with anonymized reviewer feedback.

4. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested:

  • Authors should prepare a revised manuscript and a detailed response document explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.
  • The editorial team examines the resubmission; if substantial changes were requested, the manuscript may be forwarded again to reviewers for further assessment.

5. Final Evaluation and Publication

Upon satisfactory completion of the review and revision process, the editor issues a final acceptance decision. Accepted manuscripts proceed to:

  • Professional copyediting,
  • Layout design and formatting,
  • Final proofreading.

The completed article is then published online in the SPT journal and becomes accessible to the scholarly community.

6. Ethical Standards

SPT is committed to upholding high ethical standards in scholarly publishing and adheres to internationally recognized guidelines such as those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers and editors are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Avoid conflicts of interest.
  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback.

Timeline

The average duration of the peer-review process ranges from 4 to 8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the scope of requested revisions. SPT strives to offer authors prompt, thorough, and quality-focused evaluations while preserving the integrity of the scholarly review system.