Journal of Digital Learning and Distance Education is committed to publishing high-quality scholarly work. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous Peer Review Process using a Double-Blind Review system.

Double-Blind Review means that the identity of the author is concealed from the reviewers, and conversely, the identity of the reviewers is concealed from the author throughout the review cycle.

Aims of Peer Review

The primary goals of the peer review process are to:

1. Validate the originality, scientific integrity, and significance of the submitted research.
2. Enhance the quality of the manuscript through constructive feedback and criticism.
3. Ensure the manuscript aligns with the journal's Focus and Scope.

Steps of the Peer Review Process

All manuscripts will undergo a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process, ensuring the confidentiality of both author and reviewer identities.

1. Manuscript Submission

   • The author submits the manuscript via the journal’s online system (OJS).

2. Administrative & Initial Screening

   • The Section Editor checks the manuscript for formatting, adherence to the template, and completeness according to the Author Guidelines.

3. Editorial Assessment (Desk Evaluation)

   • The Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Team assesses the manuscript based on:

     • Fit with the journal's Focus and Scope.

     • Originality and significance of the scientific contribution.

     • Initial quality of writing.

   • Note: Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be immediately Rejected (Desk Reject) without external review.

4. Plagiarism & Ethics Check

   • Manuscripts passing the Editorial assessment undergo a check for plagiarism using anti-plagiarism software (e.g., Turnitin).

   • The Editor also ensures compliance with the journal’s GenAI Policy.

5. Reviewer Assignment

   • The Editor assigns a minimum of two (2) independent, subject-matter expert reviewers.

   • This process is conducted under the Double-Blind Review system to ensure objectivity.

6. External Peer Review

   • Reviewers comprehensively evaluate the manuscript, focusing on: Methodology, Data Validity, Discussion, Conclusion, and Relevance.

   • Estimated duration: 1–3 weeks per round.

7. Initial Editorial Decision

   • The Editor considers the comments and recommendations from all reviewers. The Editor may seek an additional reviewer if significant discrepancies in feedback occur.

8. Author Notification and Revision

   • The Editor sends the decision to the Author: Accepted with No Revision; Minor Revision; Major Revision; or Rejected.

   • Authors requested to revise must submit the revised manuscript along with a Response Letter that addresses every reviewer comment point-by-point.

9. Final Decision

   • Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the Editor (or sent back to the original reviewers if a Major Revision was requested).

   • The Editor-in-Chief issues the Final Decision for Publication.

10. Publication Stage (Copyediting & Publishing)

    • Finally accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, typesetting (proofreading), DOI assignment, and are scheduled for publication (In-Press or the next Volume/Issue).

Possible Decisions

Following the peer review process, the Editor will issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept (No Revision): The manuscript is accepted for publication without any further revisions required.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is acceptable, pending minor corrections. The revised manuscript will typically be re-evaluated by the Editor only.
• Major Revision: The manuscript shows potential but requires substantial corrections (e.g., revisions to methodology, data analysis, or structure). The revised manuscript is usually sent back to the initial reviewers.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific standards or is unsuitable for the journal's scope. The manuscript cannot be resubmitted.

Target Timeframe

• Average time from Submission to First Decision: 1 weeks
• Average time from Submission to Publication: 6-8 weeks