The EJOLTs review processes have been developed to to be rigorous and evaluative – and  also educational for both the author and for the members of the EJOLTs review team involved. 

When you have submitted your article, it enters a three-stage review process:

1. Double-blind review
2. Open review conversations
3. Editorial Board review – decision to publish.

Papers submitted are first sent by the Editor for double-blind review, as employed by most academic journals.

Reviewers focus on how well the paper meets the overarching criteria:

• Be of high academic and scholarly quality;
• Include distinguishing qualities of a Living Educational Theory Research methodology and/or;
• Make a contribution to the field of Living Educational Theory Research. 

and other aspects of the publishing criteria. 

The reviewers will be asked to send the Editor a completed 'guidance for reviewers and authors' sheet with a clear recommendation that either:

a) The paper meets all the publishing criteria. The reviewer indicates on the guidance sheet what revisions, if any, they are advising to strengthen so all the publishing criteria are met well.

or

b) The paper doesn’t meet all the criteria and requires major revision, The reviewer indicates on the guidance sheet what they are advising needs attention before resubmitting. 

or

c) The submission is not within the scope of EJOLTs and would be better suited for submission to another journal (with possible suggestions if known).

The Editor brings a summary of the reviewers' advice to the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board decides whether or not the paper is prepared for publication, passes to the open review stage, requires further work before resubmission or is not within the scope of EJOLTs. The Editor informs the author/s accordingly.

Papers that do not successfully pass the double-blind review stage

The author/s will be informed that the paper does not meet the criteria for publication but, should they wish to revise it by using the responses from the reviewers to guide them, they could resubmit the paper. If the paper is judged not to be within the scope of EJOLTs, then they will be advised to consider submitting to another journal.

If further work is required, the author will be sent a summary of the improvements required before publication will be considered. They will be invited to engage in an online conversation in the 'open review space' with a peer-review team and others,  with the aim of strengthening the paper and working towards publication. 

The author/s and members of the Open Review Team work together to enable the author to strengthen their paper. The conversation continues until each reviewer advises the Editor that they are satisfied all points of the publishing criteria are well met. The conversation takes place online in public, so that others may learn from and contribute to it. The publication criteria guidance sheet is provided to guide the conversation.

When the appointed team advises the Editor that the paper is of appropriate quality to be considered for publication, the Editor sends the paper to the Editorial Board.

The Editorial Board reviews the latest iteration of the paper and decides whether to prepare that iteration for publication or ask the author to make further amendments. 

The Editorial Board takes into account the advice from the reviewers when deciding whether or not the paper proceeds to be prepared for publication. Members of the Editorial Board also bear in mind the publishing criteria and the contribution the submission makes to the journal realising its stated purpose, scope and aim. 

The Editor informs the author/s of the decision.