Review Policy

Peer Review Policy and Process

JIE follows a double blind peer reviewing policy. All submissions are reviewed internally and externally.

Initial Screening: Initial screening for the suitability of the article for publication in JIE is carried out by the associate editors and subsequently the manuscript is sent for blind reviewing. Each article is reviewed by one local professional and two international professionals. Authors are informed about the comments or suggestions of the reviewers and are required to revise their paper in the specific time.

Regretting after initial review: A large number of submissions are rejected without being sent out for external peer review on the grounds of priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, lack of interest to the readers or the absence of scope of the journal. Usually an immediate decision is taken on such papers.

Sending paper to reviewers: The remaining articles are assigned to an associate editor, who will send it to one local and two external reviewers selected from a list of experts/reviewers. The paper may also be sent to a specialist statistical reviewer if the paper demands such expertise. Once the reviews have been received, the editorial team makes a decision to accept or reject a manuscript, or to request revisions from the author in response to the reviewers’ comments

Research articles authored by a member of a journal’s editorial team are independently peer reviewed; an editor will have no input or influence on the peer review process or publication decision for their own article. The review process generally takes 04 to 08 months but may take longer that depends on review reports from the reviewers

Selection of Peer Reviewers

Selection of reviewers is of greater significance for publishing a high quality papers. JIE selects reviewers keeping their expertise, reputation, experience and qualification in mind. The editorial board discourages using those reviewers who do not give potential feedback and specific comments or are slow, non serious or biased in any sense. JIE gets reviewers’ consent before sending them papers to them for review.

Research articles authored by a member of a journal’s editorial team are independently peer reviewed; an editor must have no input or influence on the peer review process or publication decision for their own article.

The KEY for final recommendations as per AIOU policy is as follows:

  • Scope  Newness and Applicability: 30%
  • Citation/ Quality of references: 20%
  • Grammar and Style: 10%
  • Contents/ all components and organization: 40%

The reviewers submit the confidential comments to the editorial board, if any and arrive at one of the following recommendations.

  • Accept, without revision
  • Accept, after minor revisions suggested
  • Accept, after major revisions suggested
  • Reject, not fit for publication

Moreover the reviewer intimate that after the revision, he/ she either wants to read the article again or leave it up to the editor to decide.

Journal of Inclusive Education

Peer Review form/ Checklist

REVIEWER:__________________________

AFFILIATED WITH INSTITUTION/ UNIVERSITY: ____________________________________________________________

COUNTRY:____________________________

 

TITLE

  • Is the title appropriate? If the title does not clearly or adequately describe the intent of the study, suggest alternate language for the title.

ABSTRACT

  • Are the Background and Objectives clear and consistent with what is already known about this topic?
  • Are the Objectives achievable given the data used by the authors?
  • Are the study population/sample and outcome measures consistent with the objectives?
  • Do the Results match the outcome measures? All outcome measures that are reported in the Abstract Results should be defined clearly and succinctly in the Abstract Methods.
  • Is the Conclusion supported by the Results, and does it match the Objectives?

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

  • Is the problem described clearly in light of what is already known about the study topic?
  • Do the authors justify the need for this study, and does this research address that need?

LITERATURE REVIEW

  • Is the literature relevant and comprehensive?
  • Are the references accurate and in agreement with the statements made in the manuscript?
  • Are the references primary or secondary? The references should generally be the original studies rather than narrative or other reviews or journal supplements.
  • Does the literature cited highlight the objectives of the study?

METHODS

  • Is the design of study consistent with its aims and scope?
  • Are the study population/sample and outcome measures consistent with the Objectives?
  • Is the sample representative of the population in question?
  • Is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?
  • Are the reliability and validity of instruments mentioned?

For experimental research:

  • Is a randomized control group used? If not, is there an adequate comparison group (a group that is equivalent to the study group of interest except for the key independent variable or intervention)?
  • Are there potentially confounding factors that might affect study outcomes? Has the design controlled for them? If not, are study results invalidated or can the problem be addressed with a Limitation?
  • Are the methods described clearly and in sufficient detail to permit a knowledgeable reader to replicate the study?
  • Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria presented clearly, and can you determine how many subjects were excluded for each criterion?

RESULTS

  • Do the authors describe the key findings in the text and rely upon the tables and figures to present less important data?
  • Are the findings presented in the results both statistically significant and substantively meaningful?
  • Is the description of the results consistent with the study methodology (e.g., authors refer to the specific group, time period, or other key details in describing the study findings, so that readers understand the findings clearly)?
  • To what populations are the results generalizable? Does the data presentation accurately reflect those populations, or does it over-extend?

For experimental research:

  • Are the study group characteristics quantified clearly (generally Table 1), including the use of statistical analysis and P values to show differences between subgroups?
  • Does the primary data table (generally Table 2) show the key outcome measures with the results of statistical analysis reported for each of the between-group differences?

TABLES AND FIGURES

  • Are the tables and figures understandable without reading the manuscript?

DISCUSSION

  • Does the discussion briefly review the principal findings of the current study?
  • Is the reader informed about how these study results compare qualitatively and quantitatively with the results of other similar and relevant studies?
  • If applicable, do the authors provide possible explanations why the results of the present study do not comport with findings from other relevant studies?
  • Do the authors describe the implications of their findings? If so, are the implications consistent with the study sample, methods, and results, or do the authors “stretch” the results beyond what the study actually found?
  • After reading the discussion, does the manuscript pass the “So what” test?
  • Does the discussion critique and discuss the methodology used?

LIMITATIONS

  • What other factors or variables could explain the findings and are these factors and variables addressed by the authors?

CONCLUSION

  • Does the conclusion succinctly but completely sum up the key take away points of the study?
  • Does the conclusion match the objective?

LITERATURE CITED

  • Are the literature cited of high quality/standard reflecting online, traceable and reputable databases?
  • Is their utilization of references from previous articles published in JIE?

OTHER CRITERIA

INTEREST AND READABILITY:

  • Can he manuscript capture and hold the reader’s attention?
  • Will the paper contribute to newness in study area?

ORDER AND LOGIC:

  • Is the central idea clear and supported?
  • Is the organization orderly?
  • Does the manuscript flow smoothly and logically, with the sentences, paragraphs, and sections fitting together and carrying the reader forward comfortably?

CLARITY AND ACCURACY:

Is the syntax correct and appropriate?

Are the technical terms defined clearly, and is jargon minimized or absent?

LENGTH

Is the content of the paper of sufficient interest, to justify its length?

  • The KEY for final recommendations as per AIOU policy is as follows:
  • Scope, Newness and Applicability: 30%
  • Citation/ Quality of references: 20%
  • Grammar and Style: 10%
  • Contents/ all components and organization: 40%

Please submit the confidential comments to the editorial board, if make one of the following recommendations.

  • Accept, without revision
  • Accept, after minor revisions suggested.
  • Accept, after major revisions suggested.
  • Reject, not fit for publication.

Moreover kindly intimate us that after the revision, you either wants to read the article again or leave it up to the editor to decide.

Signature: ——————-