Primary Education Insight applies a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, and integrity of the manuscripts it publishes. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

Each submitted manuscript is evaluated by two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise.

The peer-review process consists of the following stages:

Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the editor to assess its suitability for further review. This stage typically takes approximately 1–8 weeks.

At this stage, the editor assesses:

• Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope

• Compliance with submission guidelines and formatting requirements

• Originality, relevance, and basic scholarly quality

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk rejected at this stage without external peer review.

Stage 2: Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to two anonymous reviewers under a double-blind review system. The external peer-review process generally takes approximately 1–3 months.

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript and provide constructive comments based on:

• Originality and contribution to the field

• Theoretical and methodological rigor

• Clarity, coherence, and quality of presentation

• Relevance to primary education research and practice

Reviewers submit recommendations in narrative form, such as acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Reviewers do not make the final publication decision.

Stage 3: Editorial Decision Based on Reviewer Recommendations

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor determines the appropriate editorial decision. Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept Submission – the manuscript is accepted for publication with no or only minor editorial corrections

• Revisions Required – the manuscript requires minor revisions; re-review by external reviewers is normally not required

• Resubmit for Review – the manuscript requires major revisions and must be resubmitted for a new round of peer review

• Resubmit Elsewhere – the manuscript is of scholarly merit but is not suitable for publication in this journal

• Decline Submission – the manuscript is rejected due to substantial methodological, ethical, or scholarly concerns

Stage 4: Revision and Final Evaluation

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised version along with a clear, point-by-point response to all reviewers’ comments, or highlight revised sentences or paragraphs.

For manuscripts categorized as Revisions Required, the revised submission is normally evaluated by the editor. However, when the revisions involve substantial conceptual, methodological, or analytical changes, the editor may decide to send the revised manuscript for an additional round of peer review. This additional review may involve the original reviewers or new reviewers, as determined by the editor.

For manuscripts categorized as Resubmit for Review, the revised manuscript will undergo a new round of external peer review.

In all cases, the editor determines whether further review is necessary, based on the quality of the revisions and the overall scholarly standard of the manuscript.

Final Decision

The final decision on acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor in Chief, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations and the editorial evaluation. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, and publication.