Praxisfera: Journal of Education and Community Learning applies a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of all published manuscripts.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team.

The screening process evaluates:

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines;
• Manuscript structure and formatting;
• Originality and potential contribution;
• Basic academic and methodological quality;
• Similarity and potential plagiarism;
• Compliance with publication ethics.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected before peer review.

2. Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assessed by the editor to determine their suitability for external peer review.

The editor considers:

• The relevance of the topic;
• The novelty and significance of the research;
• The quality of the methodology;
• The clarity of the manuscript;
• The potential contribution to education and community learning.

The editor may reject manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope or do not meet the journal's minimum academic standards.

3. Peer Review Method

Praxisfera applies a Double-Blind Peer Review process.

Under this system:

• The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers;
• The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors;
• Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and objectively.

This process is intended to promote fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity.

4. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts are reviewed by qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Academic expertise;
• Research experience;
• Relevant scholarly publications;
• Methodological competence;
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

The editorial team may invite one or more reviewers depending on the subject and complexity of the manuscript.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers generally evaluate the following aspects:

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
• Originality and novelty;
• Significance and contribution;
• Clarity of the research problem;
• Quality of the theoretical framework;
• Appropriateness of the research methodology;
• Quality of data analysis;
• Clarity and consistency of the results;
• Quality of the discussion;
• Strength of the conclusion;
• Quality and relevance of references;
• Overall clarity and academic presentation.

6. Possible Editorial Decisions

Based on the editorial assessment and reviewer recommendations, the possible decisions are:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or only minor editorial corrections.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited revisions before publication.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be subject to further review.

Revise and Resubmit

The manuscript requires significant improvement and may be reconsidered after resubmission.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards, or is not suitable for publication.

7. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must:

• Carefully respond to all reviewer comments;
• Revise the manuscript appropriately;
• Provide a clear response to each comment;
• Explain and justify any reviewer suggestions that are not adopted;
• Submit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

8. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized editorial team.

The editorial decision considers:

• Reviewer recommendations;
• The quality of the revised manuscript;
• The relevance of the manuscript to the journal;
• The originality and contribution of the research;
• Compliance with publication ethics.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the final publication decision remains the responsibility of the editorial team.

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers and editors must not:

• Share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals;
• Use unpublished information for personal or research purposes;
• Disclose information about the manuscript or review process without authorization.

10. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity.

A reviewer should decline the review if:

• They have a personal or professional relationship with the authors;
• They have a direct conflict with the research;
• They have a competing interest;
• They cannot provide an objective evaluation.

11. Review Timeline

The duration of the review process may vary depending on:

• The availability of qualified reviewers;
• The complexity of the manuscript;
• The number of revisions required;
• The responsiveness of the authors and reviewers.

The editorial team strives to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of the peer review process.

Praxisfera: Journal of Education and Community Learning is committed to maintaining a fair, objective, confidential, and rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality and credibility of its published scholarly works.