Review Policy

1. General Provisions

Scientific Works «Adult Education: Theory, Experience, Prospects» uses peer review as a required tool of academic evaluation, editorial selection, and quality assurance for published materials. This Peer Review Policy sets out the model, principles, stages, timeframes, and procedural rules for the expert assessment of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.

Peer review in the Journal is based on the principles of objectivity, independence, academic competence, integrity, confidentiality, impartiality, proper documentation of all stages of manuscript assessment, and the prevention of conflicts of interest.

Editorial decisions on manuscripts are made on the basis of their academic quality, relevance to the Journal’s scope, academic integrity, topical importance, methodological soundness, and the content of the reviewers’ reports.

Peer review in the journal is based on objectivity, professional integrity, confidentiality, non-discrimination, and equal treatment. A reviewer must assess a manuscript only on the basis of its scholarly quality, relevance of the topic, methodological soundness, logic of presentation, and compliance with the journal’s scope, without biased treatment of the author(s) on any non-academic grounds. Detailed principles are set out in the Declaration on Non-Discrimination and Equal Treatment.

The journal’s Peer Review Policy has been developed with due regard to the recommendations of COPE, WAME, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Peer review in the journal is based on independent expert assessment, confidentiality, academic integrity, the absence of conflicts of interest, and the scholarly merit of the manuscript rather than on formal indicators or expected metrics.

2. Peer Review Model and Terminology

The Journal uses double-anonymised peer review (traditionally also called double-blind peer review).

Under this Policy, this means that:

the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers;
the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors;
communication between authors and reviewers is carried out only through the Editorial Office;
review reports and reviewer names are not normally published;
peer review is carried out before publication;
the editorial decision is made by the editor on the basis of at least two independent expert reports, unless otherwise stated in this Policy.

For clarity and consistency, the Journal uses the term “double-anonymised peer review” in its public description of the process.

3. Which Materials Are Peer Reviewed

External peer review is required for all academic materials submitted for publication as research outputs, including:

research articles;
review articles;
other academic texts, if the Editorial Office considers full peer review necessary.

External peer review is not required for editorial notes, editorial statements, announcements, information notices, technical website updates, greetings, obituaries, or other non-academic or service materials. Such items are assessed by the Editorial Office within normal editorial control.

4. Stages of Manuscript Assessment

4.1. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the Editorial Office carries out an initial check of the manuscript. This includes:

relevance to the Journal’s scope and subject area;
compliance with technical and formatting requirements;
presence of all required structural elements;
screening for possible breaches of academic integrity;
checking the completeness of supporting documents and declarations;
where necessary, a preliminary assessment of ethical risks, conflict of interest, and the presence of proper approvals or explanations.

At this stage, the manuscript may be:

accepted for external peer review;
returned to the author for technical revision;
rejected without external peer review (desk rejection) if it clearly does not match the Journal’s scope, basic academic quality requirements, or ethical standards.

The initial editorial screening normally takes up to 10 working days from the date of submission.

4.2. Selection and Appointment of Reviewers

Each manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Office on the basis of:

academic competence in the relevant field;
recent publications or research experience on the manuscript topic;
absence of conflict of interest;
institutional and professional independence from the author(s);
ability to provide a reasoned expert report within the required time.

The Journal gives preference to reviewers who have an academic degree and/or proven research experience in the subject area of the submitted manuscript.

As a rule, a reviewer should not:

work in the same institution as the author;
be in a direct reporting or supervisory relationship with the author;
have co-authored publications with the author in recent years;
have a personal, professional, financial, or other interest in the editorial outcome.

The Editorial Office may invite both external independent experts and members of the Editorial Board, provided that the principles of independence, confidentiality, and impartiality are fully respected. However, for manuscripts that require full external expert assessment, priority is given to external reviewers who are not connected with the authors or with editorial decision-making on the manuscript.

4.3. Conflict of Interest and Replacement of a Reviewer

Before starting the review, the invited reviewer must confirm:

academic competence in the manuscript topic;
absence of conflict of interest;
readiness to follow confidentiality rules and review deadlines.

If a real, potential, or significant perceived conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer must refuse the review and immediately inform the Editorial Office.

In such a case, the Editorial Office appoints another reviewer without disclosing the identity of the previous reviewer to the author.

5. Peer Review Procedure

A manuscript accepted for external review is sent to the reviewers in anonymised form together with a review form and assessment criteria.

The reviewer assesses the manuscript, including the following points:

relevance to the Journal’s scope;
topical importance and academic originality;
theoretical and/or practical value;
clarity of the research problem and aim;
methodological soundness;
logical structure and presentation;
validity of the conclusions;
quality of the sources used;
compliance with ethical standards;
language quality and academic presentation.

The review report must be reasoned, professional, respectful in tone, specific, and useful for both the Editorial Office and the author during the revision process.

The Editorial Office does not accept formal, very short, template-like, or unreasoned reviews as a sufficient basis for decision-making.

6. Timeframes for Peer Review

The standard period for preparing one review report is normally up to 21 calendar days from the date on which the reviewer confirms acceptance of the review invitation.

Where there is a justified reason, the Editorial Office may agree to a reasonable extension. If a reviewer cannot provide a report within an acceptable time, the Editorial Office may replace the reviewer with another expert.

For manuscripts sent for external peer review, the first editorial decision is usually made within 5-8 weeks after completion of the initial screening, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for additional expert assessment.

The Journal does not use formal “express peer review” that fails to provide a proper independent academic assessment of the manuscript.

7. Minimum Number of Reviews and Basis for the Decision

A decision on publication requires at least two independent review reports.

If:

the reviewers’ conclusions differ substantially;
one review is incomplete, unreasoned, or raises doubts about the quality of the assessment;
ethical concerns arise;
the manuscript requires additional specialised evaluation,

the Editorial Office appoints an additional third reviewer or refers the manuscript to an authorised editor or the Editorial Board without breaching the principle of independence.

The final decision cannot be based only on the formal fact that reviews have been received. It must be based on the content, quality, and reasoning of the expert reports.

8. Possible Editorial Decisions

After peer review, the Editorial Office may make one of the following decisions:

accept the manuscript without changes;
accept the manuscript subject to minor revision;
request major revision and further consideration;
send the manuscript for another round of peer review;
reject the manuscript.

The author receives an editorial decision letter together with anonymised reviewer comments.

9. Revision of the Manuscript by the Author

If the manuscript requires revision, the author must submit within the time set by the Editorial Office:

a revised version of the manuscript;
a separate response letter to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments, clearly explaining which changes were made and which comments the author does not accept, with reasons.

The normal revision period is:

up to 14 calendar days for minor revisions;
up to 30 calendar days for major revisions,

unless another period is agreed by the Editorial Office.

The number of peer review rounds depends on the nature of the comments, the quality of the revised manuscript, and the editorial decision. In the Journal’s normal practice, a manuscript goes through one or two rounds of peer review. In exceptional cases, if the manuscript requires additional expert assessment, verification of substantial revisions, or the resolution of serious academic or ethical concerns, the Editorial Office may assign an additional round of peer review.

A substantially revised manuscript is normally sent again to at least one of the previous reviewers or to another independent expert.

10. Rights and Duties of Reviewers

The reviewer must:

provide an objective, honest, and reasoned report;
keep all manuscript materials confidential;
not use the content of the manuscript for personal benefit;
not share the manuscript with third parties without permission from the Editorial Office;
inform the Editorial Office about any signs of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, unethical use of sources, or other misconduct;
avoid insulting, offensive, or discriminatory language in the review;
not demand unjustified citation of the reviewer’s own works, the reviewer’s institution, or the Journal.

The reviewer has the right to:

refuse the review if the reviewer does not have sufficient competence or time;
ask the Editorial Office for clarification of the criteria or procedure;
recommend further expert assessment if this is needed because of the nature of the manuscript.

11. Rights and Duties of Authors in the Peer Review Process

The author has the right to:

receive the editorial decision and anonymised reviewer comments;
submit a reasoned response to reviewer comments;
ask the Editorial Office for reconsideration if the author believes that the decision was made with a procedural breach or on the basis of a clearly unreasoned review.

The author must:

submit the manuscript in a form suitable for peer review;
take part in revision in good faith and within a reasonable time;
not try to discover the identity of the reviewer;
not contact the reviewer directly about the manuscript outside the editorial process.

12. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors, Editorial Board Members, and Other Persons Involved in Editorial Decisions

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board members, or other persons involved in editorial decision-making are reviewed under a special independent procedure.

In such cases:

the relevant person is completely removed from all stages of the assessment of their own manuscript;
the manuscript is transferred to another authorised editor;
independent reviewers who are not connected with the author are appointed;
the final decision is made without the participation of the editor-author;
the Editorial Office records the use of this special procedure.

13. Transparency of the Manuscript History

The Journal ensures documentation of all main stages of manuscript assessment.

For each manuscript, the editorial system records, in particular:

date of submission;
date of completion of the initial screening;
date sent for peer review;
date of receipt of each review report;
date of the first editorial decision;
number of review and revision rounds;
dates of submission of revised versions;
date of final acceptance;
date of publication.

For published articles, the Journal aims to display in the metadata or on the article page at least the following dates: Received / Accepted / Published.

Where technically possible, the number of peer review rounds may also be shown.

14. Confidentiality

All materials submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents. The Editorial Office, reviewers, and other persons involved in the process must not disclose information about the manuscript, the progress of its assessment, the content of review reports, or editorial decisions, except where this is clearly provided for by Journal policies, law, or a proper investigation procedure concerning publication ethics.

15. Complaints, Appeals, and Reconsideration

If the author disagrees with an editorial decision, the author may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editorial Office. The appeal must:

relate to the substance of the reviews or to procedural concerns;
include specific arguments;
not contain offensive language, pressure, or attempts to influence the Editorial Office outside the proper process.

Appeals are considered by the Editorial Office and, where necessary, with the involvement of another editor, an additional reviewer, or the Editorial Board. Submission of an appeal does not automatically mean that a positive or negative decision will be changed; the matter is decided on its merits and on the basis of the available editorial materials.

Reports and complaints concerning breaches of the principles of independent peer review, confidentiality, impartiality, or ethical conduct by reviewers are considered in accordance with the Policy for the Handling of Complaints on Breaches of Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics.

16. Final Provisions

This Policy is applied together with other policies.

Submission of a manuscript to the Journal means that the author(s) agree with this Peer Review Policy.