Peer Review Process
Overview
All research manuscripts submitted to JATI undergo a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. JATI uses double-blind peer review: the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors. The process is designed to ensure that published work is original, methodologically sound, theoretically grounded, and relevant to transformative learning and social innovation.
Review Stages
Stage 1: Submission and Initial Check (about 1 week)
After submission through OJS, the editorial office checks that:
- the manuscript follows the Author Guidelines and the JATI template;
- the manuscript is properly anonymized and the title page is uploaded separately;
- all required declarations (ethics, AI use, funding, conflict of interest) are included;
- the similarity index is below 20% (excluding references).
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are returned to the authors for correction before review.
Stage 2: Editorial Screening (about 1-2 weeks)
The Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor assesses whether the manuscript:
- fits the Focus and Scope of JATI, with an explicit link to transformative learning and/or social innovation;
- makes a clear original contribution;
- is methodologically adequate and clearly written.
Manuscripts that fall outside the scope or are of insufficient quality may be desk-rejected without external review. Authors will be informed with a brief explanation.
Stage 3: Double-Blind Peer Review (about 4-6 weeks)
Manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on subject knowledge, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest. They are asked to complete the review within 2-3 weeks.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript against the criteria below.
| Criterion | Guiding Question |
|---|---|
| Fit with scope | Does the paper explicitly engage with transformative learning and/or social innovation? |
| Originality and contribution | Does it advance knowledge or practice? |
| Theoretical grounding | Is it anchored in a sound conceptual or theoretical framework? |
| Methodological rigor | Are the design, data, and analysis appropriate, transparent, and defensible? |
| Evidence of change or impact | Are learning outcomes, practices, institutional change, or societal effects demonstrated? |
| Clarity and organization | Is the paper well-structured and clearly written? |
| Ethical integrity | Are ethical approval, consent, and transparency requirements met? |
| International relevance | Does it offer insights beyond a purely local context? |
Each reviewer recommends one of the following: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
Stage 4: Editorial Decision
The editor considers the reviewers’ reports and makes one of four decisions. The first decision is normally communicated within 6-8 weeks after the manuscript passes screening.
| Decision | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript is accepted with no or only editorial changes. |
| Minor Revision | Small changes are needed. The editor may check the revision without further review. |
| Major Revision | Substantial changes are needed. The revised manuscript is usually sent back to the original reviewers. |
| Reject | The manuscript is not suitable for publication in JATI. |
Stage 5: Revision
Authors receive the anonymized reviewer comments and are asked to submit:
- a revised manuscript (with changes highlighted or tracked), and
- a point-by-point response letter explaining how each comment was addressed, or why a suggestion was not followed.
Revisions are due within 4 weeks (minor revisions may be shorter). An extension may be requested from the editorial office. Manuscripts not revised within the agreed period may be treated as withdrawn. A manuscript may go through more than one round of revision.
Stage 6: Acceptance and Production
Accepted manuscripts proceed to:
- Copyediting for language, consistency, and reference style;
- Typesetting and proofs: authors must return proof corrections within 3 days, limited to typographical errors;
- Publication online with a DOI, under a CC BY 4.0 license.
Indicative Timeline
| Stage | Duration |
|---|---|
| Initial check and screening | 1-2 weeks |
| Peer review | 4-6 weeks |
| First decision | 6-8 weeks |
| Author revision | up to 4 weeks |
| Second-round review (if needed) | 2-3 weeks |
| Copyediting and proofs | 2-3 weeks |
Timelines are indicative and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.
Principles of Review
- Confidentiality. All manuscripts and review materials are confidential.
- Impartiality. Decisions are based on academic merit only, regardless of the authors’ nationality, gender, institution, or beliefs.
- Conflict of interest. Editors and reviewers with a conflict of interest, such as a collaboration or institutional tie with the authors, must decline to handle the manuscript.
- Constructive feedback. Reviewers are expected to give specific, respectful, and actionable comments.
- Editorial independence. The editor has final authority over decisions, which are never influenced by commercial or political considerations.
- Own submissions. Manuscripts by editors or board members are handled by an independent editor, and the author takes no part in the decision.
Reviewer Selection and Recognition
Reviewers are chosen for their expertise, and authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers in the cover letter (not from their own institution or recent collaborators); the editor is not obliged to use them. JATI acknowledges its reviewers on the Reviewers page and provides a reviewer certificate upon request.
Appeals
Authors who disagree with a decision may appeal in writing to [email protected], with a detailed justification and, where relevant, evidence addressing the reviewers’ comments. Appeals are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision. The outcome is final.
