Peer Review Process

The review process at Nordic Studies in Education is double blind. The editorial team and reviewers alone determine whether submissions are to be published, independent of the publisher, NOASP – Cappelen Damm Akademisk. The decision to accept or reject a paper is based on comments from at least two reviewers.

Before the beginning of the refereeing process, manuscripts go through screening by Editors. At this stage manuscripts may be rejected directly by the Editors if judged to be out of scope for the Journal, or if scientifically or linguistically sub-standard.

Manuscripts that have successfully gone through the screening stage are then sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place via e-mail. Although the peer review process is accelerated by the use of electronic communication, traditional, high-quality peer-review standards are applied to all manuscripts submitted to the journal.

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 have the following possible options, for each article:

  1. Accept manuscript (i.e. no need for any revision)
  2. Revision required (i.e. accepted if the author makes the requested small revisions)
  3. Resubmit for review ( such cases the paper will be sent out for another peer review round)
  4. Decline submission (i.e. if 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 a journal’s 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 handling of this particular article.

All manuscripts submitted to journals published by NOASP, including meeting proceedings, etc., are handled through the NOASP platform. In cases where a guest editor is involved in handling the review of meeting proceedings, NOASP will provide support and ensure that all materials are handled through the platform.

It is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief to appoint guest editors of special issues. Guest editors are informed that the practices outlined above also apply to guest editors.

Peer reviewers are expected to disclose any competing interests. Reviews shall be objective and constructive. Reviewers shall consider the methodological rigor of the submission, the appropriateness of findings on the basis of methodology, the appropriateness of conclusions, proper establishment of the contribution within the scholarly literature more broadly, among other things. All reviewed manuscripts shall be treated confidentially.