Peer Review Process

The Journal of Multicultural Education Studies (JOMES) adheres to a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and scholarly contribution of the articles published. This process is designed to maintain high academic standards while providing constructive feedback to authors. Below is an outline of the peer review process followed by JOMES:

1. Initial Submission and Editorial Review

  • Upon submission, the article is initially screened by the editorial team for relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with submission guidelines, and overall quality.
  • If the manuscript meets the basic requirements, it will be sent to the handling editor for a preliminary review.
  • If the article does not meet the journal’s focus or quality standards, it may be rejected at this stage with feedback to the author.

2. Selection of Peer Reviewers

  • Once the manuscript passes the editorial review, the handling editor selects two to three independent and qualified peer reviewers who have expertise in the article's topic.
  • Peer reviewers are selected based on their knowledge, research experience, and impartiality. The reviewers may be drawn from both academic institutions and professional fields relevant to multicultural education, social justice, and diversity in education.
  • The journal follows a double-blind review process, meaning both authors and reviewers are anonymized to prevent bias.

3. Review Process

  • The peer reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript on various criteria, including:
    • Relevance to the journal’s focus on multicultural education, diversity, and inclusion.
    • Originality and contribution to the field of multicultural education studies.
    • Methodological rigor and appropriateness of research design and data analysis.
    • Clarity of writing, structure, and logical flow.
    • Literature review and integration of current scholarly discourse.
    • Ethical considerations, including the treatment of participants, data integrity, and conflicts of interest.
    • Implications for practice, policy, and future research.
  • The reviewers are given a set timeframe (usually 2–4 weeks) to evaluate the manuscript and provide their feedback to the handling editor. Reviewers submit their recommendations regarding acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection, along with detailed comments and suggestions for improvement.

4. Decision and Author Revision

  • Based on the feedback from the reviewers, the handling editor makes one of the following decisions:
    • Accept: The article is accepted for publication without further revisions.
    • Minor Revisions: The article is accepted, but the author must make small adjustments or improvements as suggested by the reviewers before final acceptance.
    • Major Revisions: The article requires substantial changes or additions before it can be reconsidered. Authors will be given the opportunity to revise their manuscript and resubmit it for another round of review.
    • Reject: The article is rejected if it is deemed unsuitable for publication based on reviewer feedback.
  • The decision is communicated to the authors along with the reviewers' comments and constructive feedback. In the case of revisions, authors are required to submit a revised version of the manuscript, along with a response to reviewers addressing how each comment or suggestion was addressed.

5. Final Approval and Publication

  • After the author resubmits the revised manuscript, the handling editor conducts a final review to ensure that all reviewers' comments have been adequately addressed.
  • If the manuscript is deemed suitable after revision, it will be accepted for publication.
  • Authors will receive final confirmation of acceptance, and the article will be queued for inclusion in an upcoming issue of the journal.

6. Ongoing Ethical Oversight

  • The journal maintains ethical oversight throughout the review process, ensuring that all published work meets academic and ethical standards.
  • Authors are encouraged to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and the editorial board ensures that all articles are free from plagiarism through appropriate plagiarism detection tools