The editorial policy of the Research in Educational Policy and Management (REPAM) is based mainly on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
REPAM also adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing jointly published by COPE, the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, and the World Association of Medical Editors.
REPAM publishes only original scholarly works. All manuscripts submitted to REPAM are rigorously evaluated via a double-blind peer review process. The manuscripts should be original, unpublished, and not in consideration for publication elsewhere at the time of submission.
Authors interested in submitting a manuscript to REPAM should refer to the Author Guidelines for information on how to prepare and submit manuscripts.
All submitted manuscripts are first read and evaluated by the editorial staff. Papers that are inappropriate to the journal’s scope or judged to be of insufficient general interest are rejected without external review. For detailed information on the journal’s scope, please refer to Aims & Scope.
Peer Review Process
Manuscripts that pass the preliminary evaluation are sent to at least two external reviewers selected according to their specialties and academic skills. The peer review process is carried out entirely through the online submission system. Reviewers are expected to:
– evaluate the scientific quality of the manuscript, especially its originality, validity, significance, ethical aspects, presentation quality, and interest to readers;
– provide an overall recommendation for publication;
– provide a review report.
Double-Blind Peer Review
All submitted manuscripts are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process in which the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
The Research in Educational Policy and Management (REPAM) follows strict ethical standards for publication to ensure high-quality scientific publications and public trust in research findings. Reviewers play a central role in ensuring the integrity and quality of the scholarly publication. Reviewers must conduct themselves in an ethical and accountable manner. Ethical guidelines for authors and reviewers who contribute to REPAM are detailed in the Publication Ethics Policy.
The Editor-in-Chief or the Guest Editor of a Special Issue make the final decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations from among several possibilities:
– Accept in present form;
– Accept after minor revisions;
– Reconsider after major revisions;
If the revisions are required, authors will be asked to resubmit the revised manuscript within a certain period of time. In major revisions, the revised version of the manuscript will be returned to the reviewers and it will be re-evaluated.
Appeals and Complaints Policy
Authors have the right to appeal a decision regarding their submission to REPAM if they believe the decision was unfair. To appeal a decision, submit a letter detailing the nature of the appeal and indicating why the decision is viewed as unfair.
The Editor-in-Chief will review all relevant documentation relating to the submission, may consult the relevant Associate Editor or reviewers and may appoint a new reviewer to evaluate the submission before making a decision. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.
For complaints relating to the policies and procedures of REPAM or the conduct of editorial staff, please email the details of the complaint to the Editor-in-Chief or to the publisher, OpenED Network. All complaints directed through the correct channels will be acknowledged and the resolution will be conveyed to the complainant. Complaints will be resolved as quickly as possible.