Europe Journal (ISSN 0014-2751) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly quality and integrity. All submissions that pass initial editorial screening undergo rigorous double‑blind peer review. This means that both the authors’ identities and the reviewers’ identities remain concealed from one another throughout the process.
Our peer review process is designed to be fair, constructive, and timely, ensuring that only sound, original, and significant research is published.
Summary of the Peer Review Workflow
| Stage | Description | Typical Duration |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Submission | Author submits manuscript via online portal or email | – |
| 2. Initial editorial check | Editor assesses scope, formatting, originality, and ethical compliance | 3–5 business days |
| 3. Assignment | Editor assigns at least two independent reviewers | 5–7 business days |
| 4. Review | Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit reports | 3–4 weeks |
| 5. Editorial decision | Editor synthesises reviews and makes a decision | 1–2 weeks |
| 6. Revision (if needed) | Authors revise and resubmit with a response letter | 4–6 weeks (may be extended) |
| 7. Final decision | Editor accepts or requests further revision | 1 week |
Total time from submission to first decision: 4–6 weeks on average.
Stage 1: Initial Editorial Check
Upon submission, the manuscript is first reviewed by the editor‑in‑chief or a section editor. This initial check examines:
-
Scope fit: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s aims and scope (humanities, language, education, social change)?
-
Originality: Has the work been published elsewhere? Is it under consideration by another journal?
-
Plagiarism: A similarity report is generated using iThenticate. Submissions with >20% similarity (excluding bibliography) may be returned to authors for revision or rejected outright.
-
Formatting and completeness: Does the manuscript include title, abstract, keywords, references, and necessary ethical statements? Is it formatted according to the Submission Guide?
-
Ethical compliance: For studies involving human participants or animals, is there an ethics approval statement and informed consent declaration?
Possible outcomes of initial check:
-
Pass: The manuscript moves to peer review.
-
Revise before review: Minor formatting or ethical issues; authors are asked to correct and resubmit within 7 days.
-
Reject without review: Out of scope, clearly plagiarised, or lacking ethical approval. Authors receive a brief explanation.
Stage 2: Assignment to Reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the initial check are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
Reviewer selection criteria:
-
Expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
-
No recent collaboration or co‑authorship with any author (within the past 5 years).
-
No current or recent institutional affiliation with the authors.
-
No personal, financial, or competitive conflicts of interest.
Potential reviewers are invited by email, with a link to a secure review system (or instructions for email review). They are asked to accept or decline within 5–7 days. If a reviewer declines, the editor invites an alternative reviewer.
Confidentiality: Reviewers are instructed that the manuscript is confidential and may not be shared or used for their own research without permission.
Stage 3: Conduct of the Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using a structured form that includes the following criteria:
-
Originality: Does the research present new insights, data, or theoretical contributions?
-
Significance: Is the work important to its field? Does it advance knowledge or practice?
-
Methodology: Are the methods appropriate, clearly described, and rigorously applied?
-
Clarity: Is the writing clear, well‑structured, and free of major language errors?
-
Literature review: Are relevant previous works properly cited and engaged with?
-
Ethical compliance: Are ethical standards met (e.g., informed consent, data integrity)?
-
References and accuracy: Are references accurate and complete?
Reviewers provide a recommendation:
-
Accept as is (rare; only for flawless manuscripts).
-
Minor revisions (small clarifications, additional references, formatting fixes).
-
Major revisions (substantial changes: additional analysis, rewriting sections, new experiments or data collection, etc.).
-
Reject (fundamental flaws, out of scope, or irreparable problems).
Reviewers also provide confidential comments to the editor (not shared with authors) and comments to the authors (detailed, constructive feedback for improvement).
Review timeline: Reviewers are asked to submit their report within 3–4 weeks. Extension requests are considered on a case‑by‑case basis.
Stage 4: Editorial Decision
Once at least two reviews are received (sometimes a third reviewer is consulted if the first two disagree strongly), the handling editor evaluates the reviews and makes a decision.
Possible decisions:
| Decision | Meaning | Next Step |
|---|---|---|
| Accept as is | No further changes required. | Manuscript moves to production (copyediting, typesetting). |
| Minor revisions | Small, easily addressable changes. | Authors have 2–3 weeks to revise and submit with a point‑by‑point response. |
| Major revisions | Substantial changes required; may need re‑review. | Authors have 4–6 weeks to revise. Revised manuscript is typically sent back to original reviewers. |
| Reject | Manuscript does not meet journal standards. | No resubmission unless editor explicitly invites a revised version. |
The decision letter includes anonymised reviewer comments and specific instructions for revision (if applicable). Authors are encouraged to respond to every reviewer comment, even if only to acknowledge and explain why a suggested change was not made.
Stage 5: Revision and Resubmission
When revisions are requested, authors must:
-
Prepare a revised manuscript with all changes clearly marked (e.g., using track changes or highlighting).
-
Write a response letter that addresses each reviewer and editor comment point‑by‑point, explaining what changes were made (and providing page/line numbers) or justifying why a comment was not addressed.
-
Resubmit via the online portal (or email) within the given deadline.
Deadline extensions: Requests for extensions (e.g., due to additional experiments, illness, or other commitments) are generally granted if submitted before the deadline.
If the revision is minor, the editor may make a final decision without re‑sending to reviewers. If major, the revised manuscript is usually returned to the original reviewers (or new reviewers if the original ones are unavailable).
Stage 6: Final Decision
After reviewing the revised manuscript and the response letter, the editor issues a final decision:
-
Accept – The manuscript is formally accepted for publication.
-
Further revisions required – Uncommon, but may occur if the revision was incomplete. Authors are given an additional short period to address remaining concerns.
-
Reject – The revision did not sufficiently address the issues raised.
Once accepted, the manuscript enters the production process (copyediting, typesetting, proofing, and online publication).
Peer Review Transparency
Europe Journal follows these transparency principles:
-
Reviewer anonymity is strictly maintained. Reviewers are never revealed to authors.
-
Reviewer reports (anonymised) are shared with authors in full.
-
No reviewer‑identifying information (name, affiliation, email, IP address) is included in the decision letter.
-
Editors do not reveal the decision process to unauthorised parties.
-
Authors may suggest reviewers during submission, but editors are not obliged to use them and will avoid potential conflicts.
Appeals
If an author believes a rejection decision was based on a factual error, misunderstanding, or unfair bias, they may appeal in writing to the editor‑in‑chief within 30 days of the decision. The appeal should:
-
State the manuscript title.
-
Explain, with specific evidence, why the decision should be reconsidered.
-
Address each point raised in the rejection letter.
The editor‑in‑chief will review the appeal, possibly consulting additional reviewers or editorial board members. The appeal decision is final and will be communicated within 4–6 weeks.
Reviewer Recognition and Incentives
Europe Journal values its reviewers. We offer:
-
Acknowledgment in the annual reviewer list (published on the journal website, with consent).
-
Reviewer certificates (upon request) for professional portfolios.
-
Discount on APC (10% reduction) for any future submission within two years of completing a review, as a token of appreciation.
-
Opportunity to join the editorial board after consistent high‑quality reviewing.
Reviewers retain full confidentiality and are never required to reveal their identity to authors.
Role of the Editor‑in‑Chief and Editorial Board
-
Editor‑in‑Chief has ultimate responsibility for all editorial decisions and ensures the peer review process is fair, timely, and ethical.
-
Associate Editors handle submissions in their area of expertise, assign reviewers, and make recommendations.
-
Editorial Board members may serve as reviewers, advise on policy, and help promote the journal.
-
No editorial board member or editor is involved in handling their own submissions (those are assigned to another editor).
Peer Review Ethics for Authors
To support a fair and efficient review, authors must:
-
Not contact reviewers directly – all communication goes through the editorial office.
-
Not suggest reviewers who have personal or financial conflicts with the authors.
-
Respond professionally to reviewer comments, even if critical.
-
Withdraw the manuscript from consideration if they decide not to revise; do not simply ignore revision requests.
-
Avoid simultaneous submissions to other journals (this violates academic ethics and COPE guidelines).
Confidentiality and Data Protection
-
Reviewer identities are protected as a core principle of double‑blind review.
-
Editor and reviewer discussions are confidential and not shared externally.
-
Manuscripts under review are considered privileged information and must not be distributed or posted on public servers (e.g., preprint archives) until accepted, unless the journal’s preprint policy allows otherwise (see General Policies).
Contact for Peer Review Queries
Authors with questions about the peer review process (e.g., status of a manuscript, request for expedited review, or concerns about a reviewer’s comments) should contact:
Editorial Office
Europe Journal
Email: editors@europejournal.net
Subject line: “Peer review query – [Manuscript Title]”
We aim to respond within 3 business days.
Europe Journal – Fair, rigorous, and constructive peer review for excellence in humanities and education research.