Journal of Education, Technology and Economics (JETE) applies a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of all published manuscripts. Every manuscript submitted to JETE is evaluated by qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editor to determine whether it:

• Fits within the focus and scope of JETE.
• Meets the basic requirements of the Author Guidelines.
• Demonstrates sufficient academic quality.
• Complies with ethical and publication standards.
• Demonstrates appropriate originality and citation practices.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Academic expertise and research experience.
• Relevance to the manuscript topic.
• Academic and publication credentials.
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

The Editor may replace or appoint additional reviewers when necessary to ensure an appropriate, fair, and balanced evaluation.

3. Review Model

JETE applies a double-blind peer-review process. Under this system:

• The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.
• The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.
• Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.

Authors should therefore ensure that the submitted manuscript does not contain unnecessary information that could reveal their identities.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

1. Relevance and originality of the research.
2. Clarity of the research objectives and questions.
3. Adequacy of the theoretical framework and literature review.
4. Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology.
5. Accuracy and clarity of data analysis.
6. Quality and significance of the research findings.
7. Depth of the discussion and its connection with previous research.
8. Clarity and validity of the conclusions.
9. Quality and relevance of the references.
10. Overall contribution to education, technology, engineering, economics, or interdisciplinary research.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide recommendations to the Editor. Possible recommendations include:

• Accept Submission – The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial corrections.
• Minor Revision – Limited revisions are required before publication.
• Major Revision – Substantial revisions are required, and the manuscript may undergo another round of review.
• Resubmit for Review – Significant changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
• Reject Submission – The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision rests with the Editor.

6. Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors must revise the manuscript in accordance with the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and Editor.

Authors may be required to submit a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when substantial or major revisions are required.

7. Editorial Decision

The Editor considers the reviewers' recommendations, the overall quality of the manuscript, compliance with the journal's policies, and the authors' responses to reviewer comments when making the final decision.

If reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the Editor may:

• Request an additional independent review.
• Conduct an independent editorial assessment.
• Request further clarification from the authors.
• Make a final decision based on the overall academic merit and suitability of the manuscript.

8. Review Duration

JETE aims to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards. The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the extent of revisions required, and other factors affecting the editorial process.

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and peer-review materials are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional purposes. Editors and reviewers must maintain confidentiality throughout the review and publication process.

10. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Reviewers should decline an assignment if they have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relationship with the authors that could compromise the objectivity or integrity of the review.

11. Ethical Review

Reviewers are expected to identify and confidentially report potential concerns related to:

• Plagiarism.
• Duplicate or redundant publication.
• Fabrication or falsification of data.
• Inappropriate citation practices.
• Ethical concerns involving research participants.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Other forms of academic or research misconduct.

Any suspected ethical misconduct should be reported confidentially to the Editor for further investigation.

12. Final Publication

A manuscript will be accepted for publication only after successfully completing the editorial and peer-review process and meeting JETE's standards for academic quality, originality, ethical conduct, and relevance.

Acceptance for publication is determined by the Editor based on the overall academic merit of the manuscript and its suitability for the journal