[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
Articles archive::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Registration::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
English Language Services::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Review process ::
 | Post date: 2019/10/4 | 
Review process
Each paper is first reviewed by the Excutive manager on the criteria of minimal “fit” (whether it fits the focus and scope of IEEPJ)), “quality” (whether the paper is both methodologically and conceptually sound) and “contribution” (whether the paper has advanced our understanding of evolutionary educational psychology in the global context).  Once the submission passes this initial screening, it will be assigned to reviewers as a double blind review process.
Iranian Evolutionary Educational Psychology Journal is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. We follow closely the industry associations, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. Below is a summary of our key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers and authors.
Also to avoid plagiarism in published articles this journal use the iThenticate software that analyses the manuscripts and report the rate of plagiarism in percent. As a rule if a manuscript has the plagiarism more than 30% the author have to rephrase and para-phrase the suspected sentences. If the plagiarism rate exceed more than 60% the manuscript will be rejected without external review.
 
 Peer Review Process in Brief

Peer Review Process
Reviewers' responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
  4. Reviewers should identify the relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the editor- in-chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
View: 157 Time(s)   |   Print: 21 Time(s)   |   Email: 0 Time(s)   |   0 Comment(s)
::
Iranian Evolutionary and Educational Psychology Journal
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 41 queries by YEKTAWEB 4006