Peer Review Process

The Cambodian Journal of Educational and Social Sciences (CJESS) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. All research articles and review articles considered for publication undergo editorial screening followed by peer review by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Under the double-blind review system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

1. Manuscript Submission

The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. The manuscript must comply with the journal's submission requirements and author guidelines.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial office conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript complies with the journal's aims and scope, author guidelines, formatting requirements, ethical standards, and basic scholarly requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected without external peer review.

3. Editor-in-Chief's Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the manuscript's suitability, originality, relevance, and overall scholarly contribution. Manuscripts considered unsuitable for CJESS may be rejected at this stage.

4. Assignment to a Handling Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to an appropriate editor to manage the peer-review process. Editors must avoid handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest could affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, editorial independence.

5. Selection of Independent Reviewers

The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, independence, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest and decline the invitation when an impartial assessment cannot be provided.

6. Double-Blind Peer Review

CJESS follows a double-blind peer-review process, meaning that reviewers do not know the identities of the authors and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts for originality, methodological rigor, theoretical or practical contribution, clarity, ethical compliance, quality of analysis and discussion, and relevance to the journal's scope.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommend one of the following outcomes: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Where the two reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the handling editor may seek an assessment from an additional independent reviewer.

8. Editorial Decision

The handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and makes a recommendation. The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor based on the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's scholarly quality, and its compliance with CJESS policies. Editorial decisions are not determined solely by reviewer recommendations.

9. Revision and Re-evaluation

When revisions are required, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with responses to the reviewers' comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions are required. Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor.

10. Final Decision and Publication

Following satisfactory revision and completion of the peer-review process, the manuscript may be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts proceed to editorial preparation, copyediting, proofreading, and publication.

Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must maintain confidentiality and disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Editors must not participate in editorial decisions concerning manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. Such manuscripts will be assigned to another qualified editor to ensure an independent and impartial review and decision-making process.