Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to i-ME undergo a meticulous peer-review process to guarantee the quality and credibility of the published research. The journal employs a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous. The review process is conducted by esteemed experts in the respective fields, who carefully assess the submitted manuscripts based on their scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope.

1. Initial Evaluation:
After receiving a manuscript, the editorial board will perform an initial assessment to verify its alignment with the journal's scope and focus, as well as compliance with publication guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria will be rejected without further review. Additionally, manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 15% will be rejected at this stage. The editorial office will also review the article's formatting and citation styles to ensure adherence to the specified author guidelines. If the required conditions are not met, the manuscript will be returned to the author for necessary revisions and resubmission. Once the manuscript successfully passes the initial evaluation, it will be forwarded to reviewers for further assessment.

2. Reviewers Assignment:
The editorial board will select at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field of study and experience in the specific research area covered by the manuscript. To ensure impartiality, the reviewers will remain unaware of the authors' identities, and vice versa. The manuscript should have all references to author names, acknowledgments, and contributions removed and placed in the Title page file. The assigned editor will then extend invitations to the reviewers. The invited reviewers are expected to be affiliated with institutions different from those of the corresponding authors. Reviewers will evaluate the invitation based on their scientific expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and other pertinent criteria. Our journal is committed to promptly assigning reviewers within a two-week timeframe.

3. Review Process:
The reviewers will assess the manuscript's scientific quality, originality, validity, and relevance to the field of study. Typically, reviewers are granted two weeks to evaluate the research work thoroughly. They will provide valuable feedback to the authors to enhance the manuscript and may propose acceptance, rejection, or the need for revisions.

4. Decision:
The final decision regarding acceptance, rejection, or the need for manuscript revisions will be made by the editor-in-chief, considering the feedback provided by the reviewers and the manuscript's adherence to the publication guidelines. In cases where there is significant disparity among the reviewers' comments/responses, the academic editor may invite an additional reviewer to evaluate the manuscript before reaching a final decision. The editor will communicate the decision (whether rejection, acceptance, or the need for major or minor revisions) to the author through the online system, along with any pertinent comments provided by the reviewers. As our journal follows the double-blind peer-review principle, all comments and suggestions will remain anonymous. The average time from submission to the first decision is approximately one month, and from acceptance to publication is typically within 2-4 weeks.

5. Revision Process:
In the case of acceptance with revision, the authors will be requested to incorporate the reviewers' feedback into the manuscript and submit a revised version for further evaluation. The resubmitted material must include the revised manuscript with highlighted changes and a rebuttal letter addressing the reviewers' comments. Typically, authors are granted two weeks (for minor revisions) or four weeks (for major revisions) to complete the necessary revisions. In the case of major revisions, the revised manuscript will undergo a second review by the same reviewers to assess whether the revisions adequately address their feedback. For minor revisions, an additional review process may not be required.

6. Publication:
Upon acceptance for publication, the authors will be requested to submit a final version of the manuscript, which will undergo copyediting and formatting to prepare it for publication in the journal. Through this rigorous peer-review process, all manuscripts submitted to Insights into Modern Education ( i-ME) are meticulously evaluated according to the utmost scientific integrity and ethical standards, ensuring that only the highest quality research is published.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement for Peer Review Process
 i-ME is deeply committed to upholding the utmost standards of publication ethics and preventing any form of publication malpractice within its peer review process. The following set of guidelines guides our dedication to maintaining integrity:

   Confidentiality: Confidentiality is maintained throughout the peer-review process, ensuring that all information about submitted manuscripts is treated with the utmost confidentiality. Editors, reviewers, and any other individuals involved in the process are bound by confidentiality obligations and are prohibited from disclosing any details about the manuscript or its review process.
   Objectivity and Impartiality: The peer-review process is conducted fairly and impartially. Editors and reviewers assess manuscripts based on their scientific merit, relevance, and overall quality, free from personal biases or conflicts of interest. Their primary objective is to provide constructive feedback to authors, aiming to enhance the quality and rigor of their work.
   Timeliness: i-ME prioritizes timely peer review to ensure the efficient processing of manuscripts. Editors and reviewers are required to conduct their evaluations within a reasonable timeframe. Authors can expect regular updates on the status and progress of their manuscripts, receiving prompt notifications during the review process.
   Transparency and Accountability: The peer-review process should embody transparency and accountability. Reviewers are encouraged to offer clear, well-reasoned, and constructive feedback. By leveraging the reviewers' comments and expertise, editors should make fair and informed decisions.
   Conflict of Interest: Editors and reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest that could influence their impartiality and objectivity in the review process. Should a conflict of interest arise, necessary measures will be implemented to ensure an unbiased evaluation.
   Plagiarism and Misconduct: Editors and reviewers must be diligent in identifying potential plagiarism, data fabrication, or any other forms of research misconduct. If any suspected misconduct is detected, it should be promptly reported to the appropriate authorities for further investigation and necessary action.
   Peer Reviewer Recognition: i-ME deeply appreciates the invaluable contribution of peer reviewers and acknowledges their expertise and commitment. The journal is committed to properly recognizing and crediting reviewers for their significant contributions to the publication process.

 i-ME is dedicated to upholding the integrity and credibility of the peer-review process, prioritizing fairness, transparency, and ethical conduct in evaluating manuscripts. By adhering to these principles, we aim to maintain the highest standards of quality and trustworthiness in the research published within our journal.