Steps of the research arbitration process in Journal of Faculty of Education, Assiut University:

 

1. Research submission: The researcher must submit the research through the website of Journal of Faculty of Education, Assiut University. The specified corresponding author is responsible for the paper during the submission and peer review process.

 

2. Researchers verify the required publication conditions available to the author on the website of the Journal of the Faculty of Education, Assiut University.
3. The journal specifies the required fees through official receipts.
4. A copy of the research with removed author names is sent to the editor who is most knowledgeable of its scientific scope for an initial review. The editor verifies that the paper meets the journal's publication standards which include:

• The research topic is within the journal's scope.
• The author has complied with the journal's publication guidelines.
• Appropriate academic language is used.
• The research demonstrates originality.
• The research complies with scientific research ethics-standards.
• The research has not been submitted elsewhere.

If the research meets the publication standards, the editor suggests two relevant referees. If not, the author is notified of rejection based on the editor's initial review.

5. Invitation of Jury members: Invitations are sent to the jury members proposed by editors based on expertise and research interest alignment. If an invitation is declined, invitations are sent to alternate jury member.
6. Arbitration of research is conducted: The double-blind arbitration process generally involves communication between editors A copy of the research with removed author names and the panel of jury members. Jury members typically provide review results within seven days of receiving the research from the editor.

 

They must review the following standards:

• Verifying the methodological correctness, identifying scientific errors, and evaluating design and tools used.
• Determining the research importance in the light of assessing validity and significance of findings.
• Determining the research originality based on its contributions to the field of scientific research.
• Assessing the appropriateness and novelty of cited academic references, noting any unsupported or inaccurate sources or references.
• Recommendation of accepting, rejecting, or modifying the research.

• Submitting review results to the journal with one of these recommendations:

*Accept       * Reject      *Minor Modifications     *Substantial Modifications    

 

7. Assessment of review results: If the arbitration result is minor modifications or substantial modifications, constructive jury-member comments are sent to the author to help improve the research. After receiving the modified copy, an editor verifies that jury member's notes were made. If jury member's results conflict significantly, a third member is suggested and a final decision is made after that. This follow-up review by editors ends up with a recommendation of acceptance or rejection of the research.
8. Informing the author the final decision: The Editor-in-Chief approves the final decision (accept or reject) which is communicated and verified through the online system and email to the specified corresponding author. If the final decision is rejection, the author is notified along with any relevant comments from editors or jury member without names.
9. Sending the accepted research for the production process which includes linguistic editing and typesetting for publication in the designated issue.

 

Guidelines for Jury Members:

Contributing to editorial board decision: Evaluating the research by peer jury members helps in making decisions issued by the editorial board about research papers. In addition, the jury member’s comments to the researcher through the editorial board may contribute to the development of the research paper. Peer evaluation is at the heart of the research process.

 

Speed: Any selected jury member who feels that s/he is not qualified to review a manuscript submitted to him/her, or that it won't be possible to review it within the specified time by the journal, should notify the editor and excuse himself from arbitration.

 

Confidentiality: The jury member must treat papers received for arbitration as confidential documents. It should not be shown to others or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

 

Objectivity criteria: The arbitration process must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is not accepted. Jury members must clearly state their opinions on the paper with supporting arguments.

 

Acknowledgment of sources:  Jury members must identify relevant published works that are not cited by the authors. The relevant citation is mentioned when referring to any information or previous research results. The jury member must also draw the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any published paper of which s/he is aware.

 

Disclosure & conflict of interests:  The jury member must not use unpublished materials arbitrated in the research submitted to him/ her without the explicit written consent of the author. Any invited jury member who has a conflict of interests or connections with any of the authors or institutions associated with the manuscript must immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review until the editors can select alternative jury members.