All manuscripts submitted to Spectrum: Journal of Science Education undergo an editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review. The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, clarity, educational relevance, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

Spectrum uses a double-blind review system, in which the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors during the review process. This system is intended to support fair, independent, and objective scholarly evaluation.

Authors submit their manuscripts electronically through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS). Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript complies with the Author Guidelines, article template, Publication Ethics, and journal scope before submission.

The Editorial Team conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further evaluation. The screening may include:

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
• Compliance with the journal template and Author Guidelines;
• Basic scientific and methodological quality;
• Clarity of research objectives and contribution;
• Completeness of manuscript structure;
• Language and presentation quality;
• Research and publication ethics;
• Originality and similarity assessment.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope or do not meet minimum academic and editorial standards may be declined without external peer review.

Manuscripts may be screened using recognized similarity-detection software. Similarity reports are evaluated editorially and are not interpreted solely on the basis of a numerical percentage. The Editorial Team may also examine potential ethical issues, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, fabrication, falsification, or other forms of research and publication misconduct.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript. Normally, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewer selection considers academic expertise, research experience, publication record, independence, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts when a relationship with the authors or research could compromise impartiality.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript in areas including:

• Originality and scholarly contribution;
• Relevance to science education;
• Clarity of the research problem and objectives;
• Appropriateness of theoretical foundations;
• Research design and methodological rigor;
• Validity and reliability of research instruments, where applicable;
• Quality and accuracy of data analysis;
• Clarity and significance of research findings;
• Depth and critical quality of the discussion;
• Relationship of findings to previous research;
• Educational, theoretical, or practical implications;
• Quality and relevance of references;
• Overall clarity and scholarly presentation.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor in Chief or responsible Editor after considering reviewer reports, the authors' responses, the manuscript's academic quality, and compliance with journal policies. When reviewer recommendations differ significantly, the Editor may seek additional evaluation from another reviewer.

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts should carefully address reviewer and editor comments. A revised submission should normally include a clear response to reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed or providing a scholarly justification when a suggested change has not been adopted.

Revisions should improve the manuscript substantively rather than merely responding superficially to reviewer comments.

Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the Editor and, where necessary, may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers for further assessment. Multiple rounds of revision may be requested when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's academic and publication standards.

A manuscript may be accepted for publication after the Editorial Team is satisfied that reviewer comments have been adequately addressed and that the manuscript meets the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements. Acceptance is based on scholarly merit and editorial suitability and is independent of any publication fee or other financial consideration.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, which may include copyediting, language and formatting checks, layout preparation, author proofreading, metadata verification, and final publication. Authors are expected to review proofs carefully and communicate necessary corrections within the production workflow. Substantive changes to the accepted research are normally not permitted at the proofreading stage without editorial approval.

To support double-blind review, authors should:

• Remove author names from the blinded manuscript where required;
• Remove affiliations and identifying contact information;
• Avoid wording that unnecessarily reveals the identity of the authors;
• Ensure document properties do not reveal author identities where practical;
• Submit author information separately through the OJS metadata fields.

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished research information are treated as confidential. Editors and reviewers must not disclose or use confidential information obtained through the peer-review process for personal, professional, or academic advantage.

Editors and reviewers should disclose any personal, professional, financial, academic, or institutional relationships that could reasonably affect the impartiality of the review or editorial decision. Where a meaningful conflict exists, another editor or reviewer should handle the manuscript.

Editorial and publication decisions are based on academic merit, scientific quality, ethical considerations, relevance to the journal, and the integrity of the scholarly record. Editorial decisions are not determined by an author's institutional affiliation, professional status, nationality, or financial considerations.