Dialogue: Educational and Social Perspectives

Peer Review Process

Peer Review System: Dialogue: Educational and Social Perspectives applies a double-blind peer-review process to manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening. In this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other in order to support an objective, independent, and fair evaluation process. Manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the submission.

Dialogue uses a double-blind peer-review model .

• Reviewers do not receive information identifying the authors.
• Authors do not receive information identifying the reviewers.
• Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit and relevance.
• All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential.

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS) and provide the required metadata, manuscript file, and supporting information.

The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration. The screening normally considers the journal's aims and scope, originality, academic quality, manuscript structure, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance, language, references, and adherence to the Author Guidelines.

The manuscript may be screened for originality, similarity, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and other ethical concerns. The editorial team may also assess disclosures, research ethics, participant protection, authorship, conflicts of interest, and other relevant ethical requirements.

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript topic, methodology, or disciplinary perspective. The journal normally assigns at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the fairness of the review.

Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and provide comments, recommendations, and suggestions for improvement. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based evaluations.

After considering the reviewers' reports, the responsible Editor or Editor in Chief makes an editorial decision. Reviewer recommendations are important advisory inputs, but the final decision rests with the journal's editorial team.

When revision is requested, authors should carefully address reviewer and editor comments. Authors may be required to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the editor and, where necessary, returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers. This process may continue until the manuscript meets the journal's academic and editorial standards or until a final decision is reached.

Following review and revision, the Editor or Editor in Chief makes the final decision regarding the manuscript. The final decision may be acceptance, further revision, or rejection.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, which may include copyediting, layout, proofreading, metadata preparation, and final publication. Authors may be asked to review the final proof before publication.

• Relevance to the aims and scope of Dialogue.
• Originality and significance of the study.
• Clarity of the research problem and objectives.
• Adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework.
• Quality and relevance of the literature review.
• Clarity of the research gap and scholarly contribution.
• Appropriateness of the research design and methodology.
• Adequacy of participant selection, sampling, data sources, or study context.
• Validity, reliability, credibility, or trustworthiness of research instruments and procedures.
• Appropriateness of data analysis methods.
• Clarity and accuracy of the results.
• Depth and quality of the discussion.
• Appropriate comparison with previous research.
• Theoretical, educational, social, practical, or policy implications.
• Consistency between objectives, results, discussion, and conclusion.
• Quality and relevance of references.
• Compliance with research and publication ethics.
• Clarity, coherence, and academic quality of writing.

• have expertise relevant to the manuscript;
• have appropriate academic or research experience;
• be independent from the authors where reasonably possible;
• have no significant conflict of interest;
• be capable of providing objective and constructive review;
• maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

All manuscripts, review reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished materials related to the peer-review process are confidential. Reviewers and editors must not reproduce, share, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage. Confidential manuscript content should not be uploaded to external artificial intelligence tools or third-party systems when confidentiality and data protection cannot be guaranteed.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the final decision. The responsible Editor or Editor in Chief makes the final editorial decision after considering reviewer reports, author responses, manuscript quality, ethical requirements, journal scope, and applicable editorial policies. Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional review before making a decision.

Peer Review Commitment

Dialogue: Educational and Social Perspectives is committed to maintaining a fair, independent, confidential, and constructive peer-review process. The journal considers peer review an essential mechanism for strengthening scholarly quality, protecting research integrity, and supporting meaningful academic dialogue across educational and social perspectives.

Dialogue: Educational and Social Perspectives
Education • Society • Perspectives

Published by PT. Gammabeta Edu and Tech