Peer Review Process

The review process at Nordic Journal of Systematic Reviews in Education is double-blind. The editorial team and reviewers determine whether submissions are suitable for publication, independently of the publisher, Cappelen Damm Akademisk. The decision to accept or reject a paper is made by the editors, based on comments from at least two reviewers.

Prior to peer review, manuscripts go through a preliminary screening by the journal’s editors. At this stage, manuscripts may be rejected directly by the editors if judged to be out of scope for the journal, or scientifically or linguistically substandard.

Manuscripts that have successfully gone through the screening stage are then sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place on the journal’s platform to ensure blind review.

Peer reviewers are asked to give their opinion on a number of issues pertinent to the scientific and formal aspects of a paper, and to judge the papers on grounds of originality, quality and relevance.

Peer reviewers will choose from the following possible recommendations:

  1. Accept manuscript (i.e., no need for any revision)
  2. Revision required (i.e., accepted if the author makes the requested minor revisions)
  3. Resubmit for review (i.e., the paper, once revised, will require another peer review round)
  4. Decline submission (i.e., the manuscript is substandard) 

Only scientifically qualified persons evaluate reviews and make the decision to accept or reject a submission. Typically, this means the editor-in-chief makes a final decision, or a subject editor or guest editor, where applicable. The editor-in-chief is accountable for the quality of editorial decisions.

Should a member of the journal’s own editorial team submit a manuscript to the journal, a co-editor will be assigned to take charge of the entire review process and act as editor for that particular paper. Alternatively, the co-editor may assign an external trusted expert. The person acting as editor will be named as responsible editor of the article, indicating that the editor who submitted the paper has had nothing to do with the evaluation of this particular article.

Peer reviewers are expected to disclose any competing interests. Reviews shall be objective and constructive. Reviewers shall consider the methodological rigor of the submission, whether findings are reasonable based on the methodology, the conclusions’ validity, and the article’s relevance within the scholarly literature more broadly, among other things. All manuscripts shall be treated confidentially.