In double-blind review, author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another during evaluation. This keeps attention on the quality, relevance, clarity, originality, and contribution of the manuscript rather than on an author's reputation, affiliation, location, or professional status.

This approach is especially important for a journal covering social policy and education. Research in these fields often concerns public institutions, inequality, rights, welfare systems, educational access, governance, and community conditions. Manuscripts may come from very different national, cultural, and institutional settings and may address questions that are sensitive or highly context-dependent. Double-blind review creates a more consistent basis for assessment by asking reviewers to evaluate the manuscript itself, including its argument, evidence, method, interpretation, and relevance.

The IJSPE peer review process is coordinated through direct editorial communication and email. The journal website supports author submission and administrative status management, but there is no online reviewer dashboard, reviewer login, automated round-tracking interface, or automated appeals system. Reviewer invitations, manuscript sharing, reports, revision communication, and editorial decisions are handled outside the platform.

Initial Editorial Screening

The process begins when a manuscript is received by the editor. Before external review, the submission is screened for scope, fit, and general suitability. The editor considers whether the manuscript addresses social policy, education, or an interdisciplinary area connecting the two and whether it presents a sufficiently clear scholarly contribution to proceed.

This initial screening is not full peer review. Its purpose is to determine whether the manuscript is appropriate for independent academic assessment. A submission may not proceed if it falls outside the journal's scope, lacks a clear contribution, or is not ready for external evaluation in its submitted form.

The editor also considers the manuscript type and the expectations appropriate to that form. IJSPE accepts original research papers, review papers, conceptual frameworks, analytical and simulation models, case studies, empirical research, technical notes, and book reviews, together with occasional themed special issues. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening move to external double-blind review.

Assignment to Independent Reviewers

Each manuscript sent for review is assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers. The reviewers assess the submission without knowing the identity of the author or authors, and the authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.

Using at least two reviewers provides more than one scholarly perspective. This is valuable in interdisciplinary fields, where manuscripts may draw on different theoretical traditions, methods, policy frameworks, or educational contexts. One reviewer may focus closely on research design and evidence, while another may emphasize conceptual clarity, literature, policy relevance, or interpretation.

Reviewers assess the manuscript according to its type and intended contribution. Relevant considerations may include the clarity of the research question, appropriateness of the method, engagement with literature, coherence of the argument, reliability of the analysis, significance of the findings, and fit with the journal's scope. Conceptual, analytical, review-based, and empirical submissions may require different emphases, but each should be clear, rigorous, and capable of contributing to scholarship, policy, practice, or future research.

Review Timeline

IJSPE aims to provide a review decision within approximately three weeks of submission. This academic journal review timeline includes editorial screening, reviewer coordination, independent evaluation, and preparation of the editorial decision.

The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the time needed to receive and assess reports. Because the process is human-led and coordinated through email, additional communication may sometimes be required.

The journal seeks to balance timeliness with proper academic evaluation. The three-week period is therefore an approximate expectation rather than an automated guarantee. Independent and careful review remains more important than producing a rapid decision without sufficient assessment.

Reviewer Reports and Editorial Decision

After completing their evaluations, reviewers return their reports to the editor. These reports may identify strengths, weaknesses, questions, corrections, or areas requiring further explanation. They may also comment on originality, structure, method, analysis, relevance, and contribution.

The editor considers the reviewer reports together with the manuscript and the journal's standards. The final decision is not produced automatically and is not based simply on counting reviewer recommendations. The editor interprets the reports, considers whether the comments are relevant and consistent, and determines the most appropriate outcome.

Differences between reviewers may occur, particularly in interdisciplinary research. In such cases, the editor assesses the significance of the concerns raised and communicates a reasoned manuscript decision. The possible outcomes are:

1. Accept — The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form, subject to any final editorial or production requirements.
2. Accept with minor revisions — The manuscript is publishable in principle but requires limited corrections, clarifications, or improvements.
3. Major revision and resubmission — Substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be considered again.
4. Reject — The manuscript is not accepted for publication in IJSPE.

A decision requiring revision is not final acceptance. Authors must address the relevant comments and return a revised manuscript for further editorial consideration. Minor revisions may be checked primarily for completion of requested changes, while a major revision and resubmission may require closer reassessment because the changes could affect the method, analysis, interpretation, structure, or overall contribution.

Because the workflow is coordinated by email, revision instructions, author responses, and further decisions are communicated directly rather than through an online review-round interface.

Communication With Authors

Authors are informed once the reviewer reports and manuscript have been considered. The decision communication states whether the manuscript has been accepted, accepted with minor revisions, invited for major revision and resubmission, or rejected.

Where revision is required, authors receive the relevant reviewer comments and editorial instructions. They are expected to address the issues carefully and ensure that the revised manuscript reflects the requested changes.

Peer review is intended not only to produce a decision but also to improve scholarly quality. Constructive feedback may help authors strengthen evidence, clarify arguments, correct weaknesses, improve organization, or explain the significance of the work more effectively.

After Acceptance

Once a manuscript is accepted, the author is notified about the applicable Article Processing Charge. The standard APC is $300 USD. Authors from low- and middle-income countries receive a 50% waiver, reducing the APC to $150 USD. The APC is charged only after acceptance and never at submission.

After payment is confirmed, the journal issues the acceptance letter. This follows the journal's current workflow: the manuscript is accepted, the author is notified to pay the APC, payment is confirmed, and the acceptance letter is issued.

The article is then scheduled for an upcoming issue. IJSPE publishes multiple issues per year, and scheduling depends on publication planning and the composition of forthcoming issues.

The accepted article is subsequently published online and in print. As a fully open-access journal, IJSPE makes published articles available without subscription barriers, paywalls, or reader-side fees. One printed copy of the journal issue is included free with the APC, while additional printed copies are available for $50 USD each.

Commitment to Fair Review

The IJSPE peer review process combines editorial screening, evaluation by at least two independent reviewers, double-blind assessment, and considered editorial decision-making. Its purpose is to ensure that manuscripts are relevant to the journal's scope and capable of making a meaningful contribution to social policy and education scholarship.

The process remains human-led, coordinated through email, and focused on the substance of each manuscript. Through this approach, IJSPE seeks to protect fairness, academic quality, and the credibility of its published record.