Peer Review Process
Independent Review, Constructive Evaluation, Accountable Decisions
Decision, Learning, and Human Development (DLHD) uses a rigorous double-anonymous peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another to support impartial evaluation, reduce avoidable bias, and protect the integrity of editorial deliberation.
Peer review is a quality-development process
The purpose of peer review at DLHD is to evaluate the scholarly contribution, methodological integrity, ethical soundness, and communicative clarity of submitted manuscripts. Review is intended not only to support editorial decisions, but also to help authors strengthen the accuracy, coherence, and significance of their work.
Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s relevance to the journal, originality, theoretical and empirical contribution, appropriateness of methods, quality of analysis, integrity of reporting, and value for the journal’s readership. Author identity, institutional prestige, nationality, geography, or personal relationships must not influence the decision.
DLHD’s process is informed by recognized principles of publication ethics, reviewer confidentiality, conflict-of-interest management, editorial independence, and transparent scholarly publishing.
Eight stages from submission to final decision
Each stage has a defined purpose, responsible editor, and documented outcome within the OJS editorial record.
-
01Submission Check
Administrative and Integrity Screening
The editorial office checks completeness, file integrity, authorship information, anonymization, required declarations, adherence to the article template, reference quality, and basic compliance with submission requirements. Similarity screening may be conducted at this stage and repeated later when necessary.
Target: 2–3 working days -
02Editorial Assessment
Scope, Quality, and Contribution Screening
The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope, presents a clear scholarly problem, demonstrates sufficient originality, meets a minimum methodological threshold, and is suitable for external review. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be declined without external review.
Cumulative target: 5–7 working days after submission -
03Editor Assignment
Handling Editor and Conflict Check
A handling editor with appropriate subject expertise is assigned. The editor must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. When independence cannot be assured, the manuscript is reassigned to another qualified editor.
Target: within 2 working days after editorial screening -
04Reviewer Selection
Invitation of Independent Subject Experts
The handling editor invites at least two reviewers whose expertise matches the manuscript’s subject and methods. Reviewers should not have a direct supervisory relationship, recent close collaboration, institutional dependency, financial interest, or other conflict that could reasonably affect their judgment.
Target: reviewers secured within 7–10 working days -
05External Review
Double-Anonymous Expert Evaluation
Reviewers independently assess the manuscript using the journal’s review criteria and provide confidential comments for the editor together with constructive comments for the authors. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are not disclosed to reviewers.
Target: 21–28 days from reviewer acceptance -
06Editorial Decision
Evidence-Based Decision and Synthesis
The handling editor evaluates the reports, resolves contradictory recommendations when possible, and may seek an additional review. Reviewer recommendations inform—but do not determine—the editorial decision. The editor communicates a reasoned decision and identifies the revisions required for further consideration.
Target: 3–5 working days after complete reports are received -
07Author Revision
Revision and Point-by-Point Response
Authors submit a revised manuscript, a clean version where requested, and a structured response explaining how each comment was addressed. Disagreement with a comment is permitted when the author provides a clear, scholarly, and evidence-based rationale.
Target: 14 days for minor revision; 30 days for major revision -
08Final Evaluation
Re-review, Final Decision, and Editorial Verification
Major revisions are normally returned to the original reviewers when available. Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor. Before acceptance, the editor verifies that substantive concerns have been resolved, ethical requirements are satisfied, and the final claims remain supported by the evidence.
Re-review target: 14–21 days
Editorial decisions and what they mean
A revision invitation is not a guarantee of acceptance. Each revised submission is evaluated on the quality and completeness of the response.
Accept
The manuscript is scientifically and editorially suitable for publication, subject only to production checks or non-substantive corrections.
Minor Revision
The core contribution is sound, but specific clarifications, corrections, reporting improvements, or limited analytical revisions are required.
Major Revision
The manuscript has potential, but substantial conceptual, methodological, analytical, or interpretive issues must be resolved before a publication decision can be made.
Reject
The manuscript is outside scope, lacks sufficient contribution, contains fundamental limitations that cannot be resolved through revision, or does not meet the journal’s integrity standards.
What reviewers are asked to assess
Criteria are interpreted according to article type and methodological tradition. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript on its own terms while maintaining the journal’s standards.
Journal Fit and Significance
Alignment with the aims and scope, relevance of the research problem, and importance for the journal’s readership.
Originality and Contribution
Clarity of the research gap and the manuscript’s conceptual, empirical, methodological, policy, or practical contribution.
Theoretical and Literature Foundation
Critical engagement with relevant scholarship, conceptual coherence, and alignment between theory and research questions.
Methods and Research Integrity
Appropriateness, transparency, rigor, ethical compliance, reproducibility where applicable, and acknowledgment of limitations.
Analysis and Results
Accuracy, completeness, logical presentation, evidentiary support, and appropriate handling of uncertainty or alternative explanations.
Discussion and Implications
Depth of interpretation, relationship to prior research, theoretical and practical implications, and proportionality of conclusions.
Transparency and Reporting
Availability of essential methodological details, declarations, data-related statements, funding information, and relevant reporting standards.
Scholarly Communication
Logical organization, clarity of tables and figures, precision of terminology, quality of the abstract, and readable academic English.
Authors, reviewers, and editors each protect review integrity
Authors
- Submit an anonymized manuscript and accurate metadata.
- Disclose funding, conflicts, ethics approval, and related work.
- Respond to comments completely, respectfully, and transparently.
- Do not attempt to identify or contact reviewers.
- Do not submit the manuscript simultaneously to another journal.
Reviewers
- Accept assignments only within their expertise and availability.
- Declare conflicts before accessing or reviewing the manuscript.
- Protect confidentiality and avoid unauthorized use of content.
- Provide specific, evidence-based, and respectful feedback.
- Report suspected misconduct privately to the editor.
Editors
- Select qualified, independent, and appropriate reviewers.
- Protect confidentiality and manage conflicts consistently.
- Assess the quality and relevance of reviewer reports.
- Make reasoned decisions independent of commercial influence.
- Document concerns and follow appropriate integrity procedures.
Confidentiality, conflicts, and responsible tool use
Ethical safeguards apply from submission until publication and continue after the review assignment has ended.
Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts, review reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished findings are confidential. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, cite, distribute, or use manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.
Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could affect—or reasonably appear to affect—their judgment. The editorial office determines whether recusal or reassignment is needed.
Generative AI and External Tools
Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, figures, data, reviewer reports, or identifiable unpublished content to public or third-party generative AI systems that may retain, process, or reuse confidential material. Any permitted assistive use must comply with the journal’s AI policy and remain under human responsibility.
Review Manipulation
Fabricated reviewer identities, compromised accounts, undisclosed coordinated reviewing, coercive citation, or attempts to influence reviewer selection may lead to suspension of review, rejection, and further investigation.
What authors must remove before review
Anonymity cannot be guaranteed when a manuscript contains unnecessary identifying information. Authors should prepare the review file carefully.
The same standards apply when additional safeguards are needed
Equal Review Standards
Special-issue manuscripts follow the same scope screening, double-anonymous external review, conflict management, and decision standards as regular submissions. The Editor-in-Chief retains oversight of the full process.
Independent Handling
A manuscript authored by an editor, board member, reviewer, or journal staff member is assigned to an independent editor who has no conflict with the authors. The author has no access to the review or decision process beyond the standard author interface.
Additional Expert Assessment
When reports materially conflict or do not provide an adequate basis for a decision, the editor may consult an additional reviewer, methodological specialist, statistical reviewer, or ethics adviser.
Review May Be Paused
Review may be suspended while concerns involving plagiarism, data integrity, duplicate submission, authorship, ethics approval, or peer review manipulation are assessed under the journal’s policies.
Timely review without compromising rigor
DLHD works to provide timely decisions while preserving reviewer independence and the quality of evaluation. Timeframes are targets, not guarantees, and may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision quality, integrity checks, or the need for specialist assessment.
Initial editorial outcome
External review target
Minor / major revision target
Re-review target
A transparent route for procedural concerns
Appeals address substantive factual or procedural errors. They are not a mechanism for obtaining a new review merely because an author disagrees with an unfavorable decision.
Submit a Reasoned Appeal
The corresponding author should submit one consolidated appeal within 14 calendar days of the decision, identifying the manuscript, decision, alleged error, and supporting evidence.
Independent Assessment
An editor who was not materially responsible for the disputed decision reviews the appeal, the editorial record, and any relevant reports or correspondence.
Final Editorial Outcome
The journal may uphold the decision, correct a procedural error, obtain additional expert advice, or reopen review. The appeal outcome is final within the journal’s internal process.
Transparent article histories
Published articles should display key editorial dates—received, revised, accepted, and published—so readers can understand the manuscript’s editorial history.
Submit a complete, anonymized, and ethically responsible manuscript
Before submitting, confirm alignment with the journal’s scope, remove author-identifying information from the review file, and prepare all required declarations and supporting documents.