Reviewers Guidelines

ELJ: Educational Leadership Journal applies a peer review process to ensure the quality and validity of all published articles. Every submitted manuscript will undergo review. The editorial board of ELJ: Educational Leadership Journal implements a fair and timely Single Blind-Review system, guaranteeing that all accepted articles meet high academic standards. For this reason, the journal relies on reviewers who can provide constructive, insightful, and valuable feedback within approximately 4–5 weeks. The reputation of ELJ: Educational Leadership Journal as a credible scientific journal depends largely on the reviewers’ ability to remain objective, fair, and critical in their assessments. This policy follows the guidelines of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Before accepting or declining an invitation to review, please consider:

  1. Relevance: Does the manuscript fall within your area of expertise? Only accept if you can provide a meaningful review.
  2. Time commitment: Reviewing requires effort—ensure you can meet the deadline before agreeing.
  3. Confidentiality: Manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents. They cannot be shared with anyone without prior permission from the editor. Because reviews are confidential, do not disclose any information about the review process to others without approval from the editor and the authors.

Article Review Guidelines

Reviewer evaluations assist the editors in deciding whether or not to publish a manuscript. It is important to provide overall constructive comments and clear reasoning so that both editors and authors understand the basis of the feedback. Key elements to be assessed include:

  • Title: Specificity and clarity
  • Abstract: Summarizes the core of the study
  • Keywords: Represent essential concepts of the research
  • Introduction: Up-to-date, original, relevant, and supported by solid justification
  • Research Methods: Clearly explain procedures and data analysis, especially for empirical studies
  • Results: Accuracy of analysis
  • Findings: Novelty, relevance, and contribution to scientific knowledge
  • Conclusion: Logical, valid, concise, and clear
  • Suggestions: Practical implications, theoretical development, or recommendations for future research
  • References: Up-to-date, with at least 70% drawn from related scholarly journals or studies. A minimum of 20 references is required.

Additional Aspects to Consider:

  • Clarity of writing: Is the manuscript coherent, logically structured, and easy to follow?
  • Style: Is it concise and understandable? Are there sections that need to be shortened, expanded, or improved?
  • Language mechanics: Pay attention to grammar, punctuation, and spelling. If minor, highlight specific examples; if frequent, illustrate only one or two cases rather than correcting all.
  • Abbreviations: Should be used appropriately without confusing readers.
  • Formatting compliance: Does the manuscript follow the journal’s style and formatting rules?
  • Citations: Are references properly provided when citing external sources?

Review Outcome Categories:

  • Accept Submission: No revisions required
  • Minor Revisions Required: Can be adjusted by the Editor-in-Chief or editorial team
  • Major Revisions Required (Resubmit for Review): Must be revised by the author and resubmitted
  • Decline Submission: Manuscript does not meet scientific standards