Journal of Educational Research and Learning Analytics (JERLRA), published by Cerdaspedia, utilizes a rigorous, multi-stage peer-review process to ensure the quality and academic integrity of all submitted manuscripts. This process is designed to be fair, objective, and timely, providing authors with constructive feedback while upholding the journal's scholarly standards.

Stages of the Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Screening: Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the JSMME editorial team. The editors check for adherence to the journal's scope and focus, formatting guidelines, and ethical policies, including originality and plagiarism checks. Submissions that fail to meet these basic criteria may be rejected at this stage without further review. Authors of manuscripts with minor issues may be asked to revise and resubmit before proceeding.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent for a double-blind peer-review. This is a critical step where both the identity of the authors and the reviewers are concealed from one another. This anonymity is crucial for promoting unbiased evaluations and honest feedback. Each paper is typically sent to two or more expert reviewers who are specialists in the relevant field of study.

3. Reviewer Evaluation and Recommendations: The assigned reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on several key criteria, including:

   • Originality and Significance: The novelty of the research and its contribution to the field of social media marketing and e-commerce.

   • Methodology: The appropriateness, rigor, and clarity of the research design and data analysis.

   • Clarity and Structure: The logical flow of the arguments, quality of writing, and overall organization.

   • Relevance: How well the manuscript fits within the journal's stated scope and audience.

   Following their assessment, reviewers provide one of four primary recommendations to the editors:

   • Accept: The paper is suitable for publication as is, with no or very minor revisions.

   • Minor Revisions: The paper is generally acceptable but requires small changes before it can be published.

   • Major Revisions: The paper has significant issues (e.g., methodological flaws, unclear arguments) and requires substantial revisions and a subsequent re-review.

   • Reject: The paper is not suitable for publication in the journal due to fundamental flaws or lack of originality.

4. Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' reports and recommendations, the editor-in-chief makes the final decision. The editor consolidates the feedback into a single, comprehensive report that is sent to the author. The author is then expected to address the feedback and, if required, submit a revised manuscript within a specified timeframe.

Author's Responsibilities and Final Publication

Authors are required to carefully consider the reviewers' feedback and either implement the suggested changes or provide a detailed rebuttal for any points they choose not to address. For manuscripts requiring major revisions, the revised version will undergo a second round of peer review to ensure all issues have been resolved satisfactorily. Once the revised manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the copyediting and final publication stages.

This structured process ensures that all published articles in JERLRA meet a high standard of academic excellence and contribute meaningfully to the scholarly discourse.