Peer Review Process Policy

JDMP employs a blind peer-review process for research manuscripts. The editorial team ordinarily seeks assessments from at least two reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Review reports are advisory; the responsible editor makes the publication decision.

Review stages

  1. Submission and technical check: The manuscript is checked for completeness, formatting, declarations, and alignment with submission requirements.
  2. Editorial screening: Editors assess relevance to educational management, originality, methodological suitability, ethics, and overall scholarly potential. Manuscripts may be declined without external review.
  3. Reviewer selection: Qualified reviewers are invited based on expertise and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
  4. Independent assessment: Reviewers evaluate conceptual clarity, research design, analysis, reporting, interpretation, contribution, and ethical issues. They submit constructive recommendations.
  5. Editorial decision: The editor may decide to accept, request minor revision, request major revision and further review, or reject.
  6. Revision and verification: Authors provide a revised manuscript and a reasoned response to reviewer comments. The editor may seek additional assessments where necessary.
  7. Final decision and production: Acceptance is followed by copyediting, layout, metadata checking, and publication subject to journal procedures.

Confidentiality and integrity

Editors and reviewers must protect unpublished manuscripts, avoid unauthorised disclosure, and disclose conflicts of interest. Reviewers should not use manuscript material for personal research or other advantage. The journal does not guarantee acceptance, a particular reviewer outcome, or an exact review duration.

When a revision is requested, authors should observe the deadline specified in the decision letter or request an extension in advance. JDMP's existing public guidance refers to a maximum revision period of eight weeks; any revision of this rule should be applied consistently in editorial correspondence.