Peer Review Process
All articles submitted to Journal of Montessori Research & Education are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article is suitable for peer-review. Submissions considered suitable are assigned to two independent experts, who assess the article for clarity, sound methodology/data analysis and validity of conclusions. Reviewers are selected by the assigned editor, with advice from the editorial board, ensuring that the selection is free from bias. For this reason, reviewers from the same institution or faculty as the author(s) of the manuscript are not invited for review.
Journal of Montessori Research & Education operates a single-blind peer review process, meaning that reviewers remain anonymous for the review process. The review period is expected to take around four to six weeks in the first round, and then another four weeks for the author to make revisions when needed. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal. A standardised response form will be provided, along with some guidance on what the Editors would like to focus on.
Based on the reviewer reports the editor will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance. Overall responsibility for the editorial processes rests with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, who is supported by an international Editorial Board of experts in the field.
All reviewers signed up to evaluate papers for Journal of Montessori Research & Education will need to agree to follow the guidelines from Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) found as a pdf here.
Reviewers are asked to provide comment on the below topics and guidelines:
- Content: Does the article fit within the scope of the journal? Is the submission original, relevant and rigorous? Is the author’s depth of understanding of the issues researched adequate? Are the sources and references adequate? Has the existing knowledge base been explored and built upon? Are the chosen methodologies appropriate and have they and the evidential base been appropriately used? Does the conclusion reflect the argument in the main body text and bring something new to the debate?
- Structure and argument: Does the abstract summarise the arguments in a succinct and accurate way? Is the manuscript logically structured and do the arguments flow coherently? Is there enough reference to methodology in the introduction and are the arguments fully evidenced and substantiated? Does the introduction signpost the arguments in the logical way and does the conclusion adequately summarise them?
- Figures/tables: Does the author’s use of tables, charts, figures or maps illustrate the arguments and support the evidential base? Is the quality of the formatting and presentation adequate?
- Formatting: Does the submitted file adhere to the general author guidelines listed for the journal? Are the citations and references formatted to house-style?
- Language: Is the text well written and jargon free? Please comment on the quality of English and need for grammatical improvement.
The journal strongly encourages authors to make all data associated with their submission openly available, according to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). This should be linked to from a Data Accessibility Statement within the submitted paper, which will be made public upon publication. If data is not being made available within the journal publication, a statement from the author should be provided to explain why. Data obtained from other sources must be appropriately credited. When depositing data for a submission, the below should be considered:
- The repository the data is deposited in must be suitable for this subject and have a sustainability model.
- The data must be deposited under an open license that permits unrestricted access (e.g. CC0, CC-BY). More restrictive licenses should only be used if a valid reason (e.g. legal) is present.
- The deposited data must include a version that is in an open, non-proprietary format.
- The deposited data must have been labelled in such a way that a 3rd party can make sense of it (e.g. sensible column headers, descriptions in a readme text file).
- Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Where applicable, the studies must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The identity of the research subject should be anonymised whenever possible. For research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study must be obtained from participants (or their legal guardian).
- A ‘Data Accessibility Statement’ should be added to the submission, prior to the reference list, providing the details of the data accessibility, including the DOI linking to it. If the data is restricted in any way, the reasoning should be given.
A list of data repositories is available at http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Data_repositories.
The journal allows authors to deposit draft versions of their paper into a suitable preprint server, on condition that the author agrees to the below:
- The author retains copyright to the preprint and developed works from it, and is permitted to submit it to the journal.
- The author declares that a preprint is available within the cover letter presented during submission. This must include a link to the location of the preprint.
- The author acknowledges that having a preprint publicly available means that the journal cannot guarantee the anonymity of the author during the review process, even if they anonymise the submitted files (see review policy).
- Should the submission be published, the authors are expected to update the information associated with the preprint version to show that a final version has been published in the journal, including the DOI linking directly to the publication.
The journal strongly recommends that all authors submitting a paper register an account with Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID). Registration provides a unique and persistent digital identifier for the account that enables accurate attribution and improves the discoverability of published papers, ensuring that the correct author receives the correct credit for their work. As the ORCID remains the same through out the lifetime of the account, changes of name, affiliation, or research area do not effect the discoverability of an author's past work and aid correspondence with colleagues.
The journal asks that all corresponding authors include an ORCID within their submitting author data whilst co-authors are recommended to include one. ORCID numbers should be added to the author data upon submission and will be published alongside the submitted paper, should it be accepted.
The use of other people's work without correct attribution and permission is considered a very serious offence by the academic community. All submissions to the Journal will be uploaded to Similarity Check to assess if the content closely matches content available elsewhere. If a high similarity report is produced, or a case of allegation is made against a publication, the Editor in Chief will carry out an independent investigation, following COPE guidelines, and remedial actions will be taken.
Competing Interests, Funding and Ethics
To ensure transparency, all authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare any interests that could compromise, conflict or influence the validity of the publication. Competing interests guidelines can be viewed here.
In addition, authors are required to specify funding sources and detail requirements for ethical research in the submitted manuscript (see Author Guidelines). All authors must confirm that they fit the definition of an author (see Authorship Guidelines), during submission.
Corrections and Retractions
The Press handles different kinds of error in accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), where applicable. All articles have their proofs checked prior to publication by the author/editor, which should ensure that content errors are not present. Please contact the editorial manager if you believe an article needs correcting.
Amendments, Publisher's Notes, Correction Articles, Retractions or Withdrawals will all be dealt with in accordance with the Stockholm University Press Corrections Policy.
Misconduct and Complaints
Allegations of misconduct will be taken with utmost seriousness, regardless of whether those involved are internal or external to the journal, or whether the submission in question is pre- or post-publication. All reasonable steps will be taken to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication. If an allegation of misconduct is made to the journal, it must be immediately passed on to the publisher, who will follow guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on how to address the nature of the problem. Should the matter involve allegations against a member of the journal or publishing team, an independent and objective individual(s) may be sought to lead the investigation.
Should an author wish to lodge a complaint against an editorial decision or the editorial process in general they should first approach the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, explaining their complaint and ask for a reasoned response. Should this not be forthcoming or inadequate, they should raise the matter with the publisher, who will investigate the nature of the complaint and act as arbiter on whether the complaint should be upheld and investigated further. This will follow guidelines set out by COPE.
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed
Original articles must describe the outcomes and application of unpublished original research based on the journal's scope. These should make a substantial contribution to knowledge and understanding in the subject matter and should be supported by relevant figures and tabulated data.
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed
Reviews should organize, integrate and evaluate previously published articles, and in the case of a meta-analysis organize, integrate and evaluate previously published materials.
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed
Commentaries should reflect upon or critique a specific "happening" such as a release of a major study or other notable occurrence related to journal focus. Authors interested in submitting a commentary piece should discuss the content with the editor before submitting a manuscript.
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed