The International Journal of Psycho-Social Educational Research (UPSEAD) employs a double-blind peer review system to ensure that the scientific evaluation process is conducted objectively, impartially, and in accordance with ethical principles. In this system, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain confidential.
Reviewers contributing to UPSEAD are expected to adhere to the following ethical responsibilities and review principles:
Reviewers should accept assignments only for manuscripts within their area of expertise.
If declining the invitation, they should inform the editor as soon as possible.
If they are unable to provide timely or effective feedback, they should decline the review request.
Reviews should be conducted in a fair, scientific, and constructive manner.
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality about all manuscript-related information.
Any information obtained during the review process must not be used for personal research or advantage.
Unpublished manuscripts must not be shared with others.
Reviewers should not accept assignments for manuscripts where there is a conflict of interest (e.g., institutional ties, past or current collaboration, personal relationships with the authors).
Any actual or potential conflict of interest should be disclosed to the editor, and the reviewer should withdraw from the process if necessary.
Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
Scientific originality and contribution
Theoretical framework and methodological appropriateness
Clarity in the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of findings
Relevance and currency of references
Language quality and writing style
Reviewers should:
Provide feedback in a clear, detailed, and scholarly tone
Offer critical but constructive comments
Include suggestions that guide and support the authors
Avoid using offensive, dismissive, or demeaning language
Reviews should typically be completed within 30 days after accepting the invitation.
Reviewers should contact the editor if additional time is needed.
Review reports should include two parts:
Confidential comments to the editor
Open comments to the author(s)
Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
Accept for publication
Minor revisions
Major revisions (requires re-evaluation)
Reject
While editorial decisions are guided by reviewer recommendations, the final decision lies with the editor.
Reviewers must avoid the following unethical behaviors:
Personal bias or unprofessional criticism
Using non-scientific, destructive, or sarcastic language
Failing to report suspected duplicate submission or prior publication
Exploiting confidential information for personal research gain
UPSEAD values the contributions of its reviewers to the academic review process. As a token of appreciation, reviewers who contribute to the journal receive an annual certificate of acknowledgment.