IJONTE follows strict double blindfold review policy to ensure neutral evaluation. During this review process identity of both the authors and reviewers are kept hidden to ensure an unbiased evaluation.
IJONTE employs a rigorous peer review system. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process before publication. Particularly, IJONTE utilizes a three-stage review process:
(1) editorial office,
(2) external/expert review and
(3) editors’ decision.
Stage 1. Editorial Review
In the first place, a submitted manuscript is reviewed by the IJONTE editorial office to ensure that it aligns with the aim and scope of the IJONTE before it is sent to external reviewers. At this stage, the manuscript is reviewed for the following:
(a) Scope,
(b) Originality and Plagiarism Check (Plagiarism ratio should be less than 15%)
(c) English Language and
(d) Recent Reference Check.
State 2: Double Blind or Anonymous Peer Review
Once a manuscript successfully completes the editorial office review process, it proceeds to the second stage. A double-blind peer-review process is where both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous throughout the process. Therefore, the manuscript is reviewed by at least two external expert reviewers with scholarly affiliation. The author’s identity is unknown to the reviewer. Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscripts and provide constructive feedback to enable the author(s) improve the content of the manuscript.
Reviewers also score the manuscript in terms of originality, contribution to the educational leadership field, technical quality, clarity of presentation and depth of research. Finally, reviewers make one of the following suggestions about the manuscript;
(1) Accept with no revision
(2) Accept with minor revision
(3) Accept with moderate revision
(4) Accept with major revision
(5) Reject: Not suitable for further processing.
State 3: Editors’ Decision
Upon receipt of the reviewers’ initial evaluations, the editorial office reviews the comments. If there are significant differences among two reviewers’ recommendations, the manuscript is re-sent to a third reviewer. The review process is usually completed between one to three months, depending on the intensity of the journal. Using the reviewers’ and editors’ feedback, author(s) make corrections to the manuscript and submits a revised manuscript. Upon receipt of the revised submission, the manuscript undergoes the third and final stage of the review process. Based on the revised manuscript and all the reviewers’ feedback, the editor-in-chief will make the final decision for a publication.