Review Process
Manuscript Review Guidelines of The Bulletin of Educational Research (BER)
Dates of Revision
August 16, 2001
October 11, 2013
August 27, 2015
January 20, 2017
March 29, 2024
May 10, 2024
1. Review Process
The review process of The Bulletin of Educational Research includes three stages: preliminary review, external review, and the review by the Editorial Committee.
1. Preliminary Review
(1) This journal conducts an initial screening of manuscript submissions. Manuscripts that meet the nature, purpose, formal requirements (including word count, format, style, etc.), and demonstrate rigor of the journal (including the structure, writing, research methods, and check for plagiarism, etc.) are sent for review.
(2) Manuscripts that do not meet the nature, purpose, formal requirements, or rigor of the journal, as well as those revealing identities in the text will be rejected by the editorial team. These decisions will be reported to the Editorial Committee for confirmation.
(3) Regarding the plagiarism check, manuscripts with less than 80% original content are generally rejected. However, if authors can provide reasonable justifications (such as citations of policies and regulations, historical documents, rewriting of theses, unpublished research plans or reports, literature citations, etc.) for high similarities, there are no specific limits on the similarity ratio.
(4) For submissions that pass the preliminary review, the editorial team may initially recommend appropriate reviewers. The editor in charge of the manuscript shall decide the final list of the reviewers.
2. External Review
(1) The external review process shall proceed anonymously. Types of external review include: initial review, third-party review, and re-review.
(2) Manuscripts that pass the preliminary review are subjected to an anonymous initial review by two reviewers invited by the Editorial Committee.
Review criteria for “Research Papers”:
i. Significance, innovation, and value of the research topic.
ii. Logical coherence and clarity of the article’s structure and writing.
iii. Clarity and soundness of literature review, research perspective, and theoretical framework.
iv. Rigor, appropriateness, and/or innovation of research methods.
v. Robustness of research results and discussion.
vi. Contribution to academic or practical education.
Review focuses for “Academic Reviews”:
i. Significance and value of the review topic.
ii. Relevance and soundness of the literature.
iii. Logical coherence and clarity of the article’s structure and writing.
iv. Soundness, rigor, and innovation of argumentation.
v. Contribution to theoretical or research advancement.
Review focuses for “Issues/Practice Reviews”:
i. Significance and value of the review topic.
ii. Relevance and soundness of the cited literature or empirical data.
iii. Logical coherence and clarity of the article’s structure and writing.
iv. Soundness, rigor, and innovation of argumentation.
v. Contribution to practical improvement or critical reflection.
Review focuses for “Research Digests”:
i. Logical coherence and clarity of the article’s structure and writing.
ii. Exploratory, forward-looking, innovative, and/or reflective aspects of the article.
iii. Robustness, appropriateness, and/or innovation of research methods.
iv. Soundness, rigor, and innovation of argumentation.
v. Contribution to theory, methodology, or practice.
(3) Initial review opinions are classified into four categories: (1) Accept; (2) Accept with minor revisions; (3) Revise and resubmit; (4) Reject.
(4) In case of discrepancies between the decisions of the two reviewers, the journal may, depending on the situation, request the author to make revisions before appointing a third reviewer is invited for an anonymous review. The review criteria and forms for the third review are the same as those for the initial review.
(5) If opinions from the initial review and all three reviews are “Revise and resubmit,” the journal will request the author to make necessary revisions. The author must complete the revisions within the specified deadline and respond to the journal. The manuscript will then be returned to the original reviewers for re-review.
(6) To enhance review efficiency, the review criteria and forms for the re-review are the same as those for the initial review, except that only three decision choices are provided: “Accept,” “Accept with minor revisions,” and “Not accepted.”
3. Editorial Committee Review
(1) Manuscripts that are rejected by external review will be sent to the editorial committee for confirmation.
(2) For manuscripts with external review decision suggesting “Accept” or “Accept with minor revisions,” authors must make revisions based on anonymous review comments within the specified deadline and respond to the journal. The journal's editorial committee will discuss and decide whether to accept publication based on the anonymous reviewer's comments, the author's revisions, whether the manuscript itself has significant problems or controversies, etc. If necessary, research method experts may be invited to review the research methods.
2. Manuscript Revision and Publication
1. Manuscripts considered for publication by the Editorial Committee must be revised based on the opinions of the Editorial Committee within the specified deadline and responded to the journal; otherwise, proof of acceptance for publication cannot be provided.
2. For accepted submissions, authors must provide the English translations of Chinese references and check the references using a DOI comparator. The final comparison results must be provided; otherwise, proof of acceptance for publication cannot be provided.
3. To encourage greater participation in journal submissions, the principle is to limit publication to only one article per corresponding or first author per year. Considering the focus and quality of the journal, for manuscripts in the same field (or interdisciplinary area), the principle is to limit such articles to no more than one-third of the total number of articles published in the same year. The Editorial Committee reserves the right to determine the publication schedule for articles.
3. Review Operation Principles
1. Professional Principles
(1) For submissions, the Editorial Committee recommends experts in the field, both domestically and internationally, to conduct reviews.
(2) The Editorial Committee shall oversee the review quality of the reviewers and establish a reviewer database as the basis for recommending reviewers to ensure the quality of journal manuscripts and enhance the level of academic dialogue.
2. Avoidance Principles
(1) The journal welcomes submissions (including those from Editorial Committee members). However, Editorial Committee members must not participating in any discussions related to their own manuscripts. They must not handle or access any information related to their manuscripts (such as review comments, reviewer information). Their duties will be managed by the appointed Editor-in-Chief.
(2) When selecting reviewers, the Editorial Committee considers not only the professional expertise of the reviewers but also any potential conflict of interest between the authors and the reviewer (such as thesis guidance relationship, colleague relationship, project cooperation relationship, employment relationship, etc.) based on the maximum knowledge of the Editorial Committee. The committee avoids assigning inappropriate reviewers.
3. Confidentiality Principles
(1) Throughout and after the review process, the Editorial Committee and administrative staff shall keep the information of both authors and reviewers confidential.
(2) The custody of journal administrative data shall be handled in accordance with the “Regulations for the Custody of Administrative Data of The Bulletin of Educational Research” to ensure confidentiality.
(3) All contributors must respect the independent review conducted by reviewers and the Editorial Committee. If contributors attempt to identify the reviewers or influence review decisions during the review process, the manuscript may be rejected by the Editorial Committee, and the contributor may be prohibited from submitting manuscripts for two years.
4. Appeals Procedure
To maintain the quality of reviews, enhance academic dialogue, and accelerate the dissemination of excellent academic research results, contributors who receive formal rejection notices and review comments from the journal and disagree with the review results, and believe the review outcomes may have substantially impacted the publication decision, may file an appeal. The relevant regulations are as follows:
1. Appeals are applicable to those who have received an official rejection notice after undergoing a complete external review process.
2. Appeals must be formally submitted by all authors of the article by completing an appeal opinion form.
3. Authors must provide specific responses to the review comments. After the Editorial Committee reviews the specificity, importance, and legitimacy of the responses, one of the following decisions will be made:
(1) Uphold the rejection.
(2) Request the author revise and resubmit the article for review by one to two additional reviewers.
4. Each article is limited to a single appeal.
5. According to the decision made in item (2), authors must pay an administrative processing fee of US$ 70 per article. If the appeal is successful, this fee can be deducted from the administrative processing fee for the next submission or the publication fee for the current submission. No refund will be provided. If the appeal is unsuccessful and the rejection decision is upheld, the administrative processing fee will not be refunded and cannot be applied as a deduction.
5. Amendments to the Guidelines
1. These guidelines shall be implemented following approval by the Editorial Board of this journal. The same procedure shall apply to any amendments.
