The editorial policy of the Journal of Curriculum Studies Research (JCSR) is based mainly on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
JCSR also adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing jointly published by COPE, the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, and the World Association of Medical Editors.
JCSR publishes only original scholarly works. All manuscripts submitted to JCSR are rigorously evaluated via a double-blind peer review process. The manuscripts should be original, unpublished, and not in consideration for publication elsewhere at the time of submission.

Submission
Authors interested in submitting a manuscript to JCSR should refer to the Author Guidelines for information on how to prepare and submit manuscripts.

Preliminary Evaluation
All submitted manuscripts are first read and evaluated by the editorial staff. Papers that are inappropriate to the journal’s scope or judged to be of insufficient general interest are rejected without external review. For detailed information on the journal’s scope, please refer to Aims & Scope.

Peer Review Process
Manuscripts that pass the preliminary evaluation are sent to at least two external reviewers selected according to their specialties and academic skills. The peer review process is carried out entirely through the online submission system. Reviewers are expected to:
– evaluate the scientific quality of the manuscript, especially its originality, validity, significance, ethical aspects, presentation quality, and interest to readers;
– provide an overall recommendation for publication;
– provide a review report.

Double-Blind Peer Review
All submitted manuscripts are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process in which the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Ethical guidelines
The Journal of Curriculum Studies Research (JCSR) follows strict ethical standards for publication to ensure high-quality scientific publications and public trust in research findings. Reviewers play a central role in ensuring the integrity and quality of the scholarly publication. Reviewers must conduct themselves in an ethical and accountable manner. Ethical guidelines for authors and reviewers who contribute to JCSR are detailed in the Publication Ethics Policy.

Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief or the Guest Editor of a Special Issue make the final decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations from among several possibilities:
– Accept in present form;
– Accept after minor revisions;
– Reconsider after major revisions;
– Reject.
If the revisions are required, authors will be asked to resubmit the revised manuscript within a certain period of time. In major revisions, the revised version of the manuscript will be returned to the reviewers and it will be re-evaluated.

Appeals and Complaints Policy
Appeals
Authors have the right to appeal a decision regarding their submission to JCSR if they believe the decision was unfair. To appeal a decision, submit a letter detailing the nature of the appeal and indicating why the decision is viewed as unfair.
The Editor-in-Chief will review all relevant documentation relating to the submission, may consult the relevant Associate Editor or reviewers and may appoint a new reviewer to evaluate the submission before making a decision. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.

Complaints
For complaints relating to the policies and procedures of JCSR or the conduct of editorial staff, please email the details of the complaint to the Editor-in-Chief or to the publisher, OpenED Network. All complaints directed through the correct channels will be acknowledged and the resolution will be conveyed to the complainant. Complaints will be resolved as quickly as possible.

Responsibilities of  Editors

Editorial Process
Editors should strive to ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased, and timely and to provide authors with information about the ongoing review and publication process. 

Editorial Decisions
Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s quality, importance, and originality, the study’s validity, and its relevance to the journal’s scope. The manuscripts must be evaluated without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, institutional affiliation, or political philosophy of the author(s).

Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by the editor or the editorial board members for their own research purposes or personal advantage in any way.

Responsibilities of  Reviewers

Accountability
Peer reviewers play a central role in ensuring the integrity and quality of the scholarly publication. They must conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. The review report must be prepared by the reviewer himself/herself, unless he/she has permission from the journal’s editor to involve another person. Reviewers must refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to their (or an associate’s) work unless there is a valid reason. All suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological criteria.

Objectivity
Reviews shall be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate. Reviewers shall express their views clearly with supporting arguments. They shall refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work mentioned in the manuscript.

Competing interests
Reviewers must not consider manuscripts in which they have competing or conflicting interests. Competing or conflicting interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious. If reviewers are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been their mentors, mentees, close collaborators, or joint grant holders, they must not agree to review the manuscript.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers shall respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for their own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.

Suspicion of ethics violations
If the reviewers come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics (e.g., plagiarism), they must inform the journal’s editor. They must cooperate, in confidence, with the journal and not investigate on their own.

For more detailed information on ethical issues regarding peer reviewers, please refer to COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.