Peer Review Policy

CREAT: Contemporary Research in Education and Teaching applies a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic relevance, and integrity of all manuscripts submitted for publication. All manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other.

The peer-review process is intended to provide an objective and constructive assessment of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts independently, fairly, and confidentially, while editors are responsible for ensuring that editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal's scope, methodological soundness, originality, ethical compliance, and the quality of presentation.

CREAT: Contemporary Research in Education and Teaching uses a double-blind peer-review model. Under this model, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. Manuscripts submitted for consideration should therefore be prepared in a manner that does not unnecessarily reveal the identity or institutional affiliation of the authors within the manuscript file.

The double-blind model is intended to minimize potential bias and promote fair and independent evaluation based primarily on the scholarly quality and contribution of the manuscript. However, anonymity cannot guarantee the complete absence of bias or prevent reviewers from identifying authors through distinctive research topics, citations, datasets, or other contextual information.

All manuscripts submitted to CREAT: Contemporary Research in Education and Teaching are first examined by the Editor or designated editorial team members before being sent for external peer review. This initial evaluation determines whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic editorial, technical, ethical, and scholarly requirements.

At this stage, the editorial team may assess the manuscript with regard to originality, relevance to the aims and scope of the journal, methodological adequacy, clarity of presentation, academic language, completeness of required sections, compliance with author guidelines, citation and referencing practices, and potential ethical concerns.

A manuscript may be rejected or returned to the authors at the initial stage if it is substantially outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient originality or scholarly contribution, contains serious methodological or scientific deficiencies, does not meet the journal's technical requirements, has significant language or presentation problems, or raises concerns regarding publication ethics.

Manuscripts that satisfy the minimum editorial and technical requirements are forwarded to qualified external reviewers for substantive evaluation.

In general, manuscripts are evaluated by a minimum of two qualified external reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record, methodological competence, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

The Editor may appoint additional reviewers when the manuscript requires specialized expertise, when reviewer reports substantially conflict with one another, or when additional assessment is necessary to support a fair and well-informed editorial decision.

Editors should avoid assigning reviewers who have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic conflict of interest that could reasonably compromise the impartiality of the review.

Reviewers are expected to provide an independent, objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript. Review reports should assist the authors in improving the quality of their work and assist the Editor in reaching an informed editorial decision.

Reviewers may be asked to evaluate, among other relevant considerations, the following aspects:

• Originality and contribution: whether the manuscript provides a meaningful contribution to knowledge, theory, practice, or policy within its field.

• Relevance: whether the manuscript is consistent with the aims and scope of CREAT: Contemporary Research in Education and Teaching.

• Methodological quality: whether the research design, methods, data collection, analysis, and interpretation are appropriate and sufficiently justified.

• Results and discussion: whether the findings are clearly presented, appropriately analyzed, and meaningfully discussed in relation to existing scholarship.

• References and scholarly context: whether relevant and appropriate scholarly sources are used and accurately cited.

• Clarity and organization: whether the manuscript is logically structured and presented in clear academic language.

• Ethical compliance: whether the manuscript demonstrates appropriate attention to research ethics, participant protection, data integrity, and responsible scholarly conduct where applicable.

Reviewers provide recommendations to the Editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication. Typical recommendations may include:

• Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive revision required.

• Minor Revision: the manuscript requires limited revisions before it can be considered for publication.

• Major Revision: the manuscript requires substantial revision and further editorial or peer review assessment may be necessary.

• Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is unsuitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or another authorized editor in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures. Editorial decisions are based on the overall quality of the manuscript, reviewer reports, the journal's scope and standards, and relevant ethical and publication considerations.

The Editor-in-Chief has ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions concerning manuscripts submitted to CREAT: Contemporary Research in Education and Teaching. The Editor-in-Chief considers reviewer recommendations together with the manuscript's scholarly quality, relevance, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field.

The Editor-in-Chief may seek advice from Associate Editors, members of the Editorial Board, or additional experts when necessary. However, editorial decisions must remain independent and should not be influenced by commercial interests, personal relationships, institutional pressure, or other inappropriate considerations.

Editors must disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest. An editor should not participate in the editorial evaluation or decision-making process for a manuscript in which the editor has a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other conflict of interest.

For example, when an editor is an author or co-author of a submitted manuscript, or when the manuscript involves a close professional or institutional relationship, the submission should be assigned to another qualified editor who can manage the process independently.

The journal may appoint an appropriate member of the Editorial Board or a guest editor to handle such submissions in order to maintain the integrity and independence of the peer-review process.

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Manuscripts, reviewer reports, data, figures, tables, supplementary materials, and other information obtained through the review process must not be disclosed to unauthorized persons or used for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, quote, exploit, or use unpublished information from a manuscript without the explicit permission of the authors and the journal.

Reviewers should read the journal's Guidelines for Peer Reviewers before accepting or completing a review assignment.

Reviewers must decline an invitation when they have a conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the impartiality of their assessment. Potential conflicts may arise from personal relationships, current or recent collaboration, institutional affiliation, financial interests, direct competition, or other circumstances.

Reviewers should inform the Editor of any potential conflict of interest as soon as it becomes apparent. The Editor will determine whether the reviewer should continue with the assignment or whether another reviewer should be appointed.

Reviewer reports should be professional, specific, constructive, and supported by appropriate scholarly reasoning. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, offensive language, or comments unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript are not acceptable.

Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns that affect the validity or contribution of the manuscript and minor issues that can be addressed through editorial revision. Reviewers should provide sufficient explanation for their recommendations so that authors can understand and appropriately respond to the concerns raised.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers during the submission process. Suggested reviewers should possess appropriate academic expertise and demonstrate a credible scholarly record in the relevant subject area.

Authors should ensure that suggested reviewers:

• have appropriate academic expertise and relevant publications in the subject area of the submitted manuscript;

• are not from the authors' current institution or an institution with which the authors have a relationship that could compromise impartiality;

• have no recent or significant collaboration, personal relationship, supervisory relationship, or other conflict of interest with the authors;

• have a verifiable institutional or professional academic affiliation; and

• preferably have an institutional or professional academic email address and an identifiable scholarly profile.

The journal reserves the right to accept, modify, or disregard reviewer suggestions. The suggestion of a reviewer by an author does not guarantee that the suggested individual will be selected.

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond carefully to the comments provided by the reviewers and editors. A revised manuscript should be accompanied, where requested, by a clear response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to new reviewers at the discretion of the Editor. The extent of further review depends on the nature and significance of the revisions requested.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor may evaluate the reports, request clarification from one or more reviewers, seek an additional independent review, or consult an appropriate member of the Editorial Board.

The Editor is not required to follow a particular reviewer recommendation when making the final decision. The decision should instead reflect an overall assessment of the manuscript and the evidence provided through the peer-review process.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant misunderstanding, factual error, procedural irregularity, or inappropriate consideration may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editor.

An appeal should provide clear and substantive arguments and should directly address the reasons for the original decision. Appeals should not merely disagree with reviewer opinions without providing a specific scholarly or procedural basis for reconsideration.

Where appropriate, the Editor may seek additional independent assessments. In exceptional cases, a manuscript may be sent to additional reviewers before a final decision is made. The Editor-in-Chief retains ultimate responsibility for the final editorial decision.

All participants in the peer-review process, including authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff, are expected to uphold high standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, manipulation of the peer-review process, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of publication misconduct.

Where ethical concerns arise during peer review, the Editor may investigate the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy and recognized standards of responsible scholarly publishing.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and should not upload unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, confidential data, or other protected materials to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or external tools where confidentiality cannot be assured.

Any use of artificial intelligence or automated tools by reviewers must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, relevance, confidentiality, and integrity of their review reports.

Editorial decisions at CREAT: Contemporary Research in Education and Teaching are based on scholarly and ethical considerations. Editors and reviewers must not allow personal relationships, institutional interests, political considerations, commercial interests, or other inappropriate influences to determine the outcome of peer review.

The journal is committed to maintaining a peer-review system that promotes fairness, academic independence, confidentiality, transparency, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

CREAT: Contemporary Research in Education and Teaching is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, confidential, and ethically responsible peer-review process. The journal recognizes peer review as a fundamental component of scholarly communication and continuously seeks to ensure that editorial decisions are based on the quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and ethical integrity of submitted research.