International Education Trend Issue (IETI) applies a blind peer-review process to ensure the independent and objective evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the journal. Reviewer identities are kept confidential from the authors throughout the review process.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript. When reviewer reports differ substantially, or when additional specialist assessment is required, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor with appropriate subject expertise. Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality of the manuscript, reviewer recommendations, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field.

Members of the editorial team and their areas of responsibility are available on the Editorial Board page.

A summary of the editorial and peer-review process is provided below.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript complies with the journal's author guidelines, formatting requirements, ethical standards, and submission requirements.

Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee that it will proceed to external peer review.

2. Initial Editorial Screening / Manuscript Pre-check

After submission, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment before the manuscript is sent for external peer review.

The pre-check considers:

• relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;
• compliance with the journal's manuscript template and author guidelines;
• completeness of the manuscript and required submission information;
• clarity and academic quality of the manuscript;
• originality and potential scholarly contribution;
• appropriateness and adequacy of the research methodology;
• compliance with publication ethics and research integrity requirements;
• adequacy and relevance of references; and
• overall suitability for further peer review.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, seriously incomplete, methodologically inadequate, ethically problematic, or substantially below the journal's academic standards may be declined at this stage without external peer review.

This decision is commonly referred to as an editorial rejection or desk rejection.

3. Similarity and Research Integrity Screening

Manuscripts may undergo similarity screening using appropriate similarity-detection software as part of the editorial assessment.

A similarity percentage is not used as the sole basis for determining plagiarism. Editors assess the nature, location, extent, and context of any textual overlap.

Where inappropriate copying, duplicate publication, unattributed use of another person's work, data manipulation, or other research-integrity concerns are identified, the manuscript may be rejected or investigated according to the journal's publication ethics policy.

4. Assignment to a Handling Editor

A manuscript that successfully passes the initial screening is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate handling editor based on the subject area of the manuscript.

The handling editor oversees the peer-review process, including reviewer selection, consideration of reviewer reports, communication regarding revision, and recommendation or determination of the editorial decision.

Editors must avoid handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, editorial independence.

5. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their:

• expertise relevant to the manuscript;
• academic and research experience;
• ability to provide an independent assessment;
• absence of relevant conflicts of interest; and
• availability to complete the review within a reasonable period.

Reviewers should not accept assignments for manuscripts for which they have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other conflict that could affect the impartiality of their assessment.

6. Blind Peer Review

Reviewer identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Reviewers assess manuscripts on the basis of scholarly merit rather than the identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, or reputation of the authors.

Reviewers are generally asked to evaluate:

• originality and significance of the research;
• relevance to the journal's scope;
• clarity of research objectives or questions;
• theoretical or conceptual foundation;
• appropriateness of the methodology;
• validity and clarity of analysis;
• presentation and interpretation of findings;
• consistency between results and conclusions;
• contribution to existing knowledge;
• quality and relevance of references;
• ethical considerations; and
• overall presentation of the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, evidence-based, and academically appropriate comments.

7. Review Period

Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within approximately two to three weeks after accepting the review invitation.

The journal recognizes that review times may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and the need for specialist evaluation.

Reasonable extensions may therefore be granted when necessary.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or an editorial decision within a fixed period because maintaining the quality and independence of peer review takes priority over publication speed.

8. Reviewer Recommendations

After assessing a manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject and Resubmit, where appropriate
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. They do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

9. Revision by Authors

When revision is requested, authors are expected to carefully address reviewer and editor comments.

Authors should normally submit:

1. a revised manuscript; and
2. a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer or editor comment has been addressed.

Where authors disagree with a particular recommendation, they may provide a clear scholarly justification.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed directly by the handling editor depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Substantial revisions may undergo more than one round of review.

10. Additional Review

An additional reviewer may be invited when:

• reviewer recommendations substantially conflict;
• the manuscript requires expertise not covered by the original reviewers;
• significant methodological or ethical concerns arise;
• major revisions require additional specialist assessment; or
• the handling editor considers an additional independent opinion necessary.

The appointment of an additional reviewer is intended to support a fair and well-informed editorial decision.

11. Editorial Decision

Following peer review, the handling editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and revisions before reaching or recommending a decision.

Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor has final responsibility for the editorial decision.

Decisions are based on the academic merits of the manuscript, including originality, methodological soundness, clarity, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal, and contribution to the scholarly literature.

Acceptance is not influenced by Article Processing Charge (APC) payments, institutional affiliation, nationality, personal relationships, or commercial considerations.

12. Final Editorial and Production Check

After a manuscript is accepted, the editorial and production team conducts a final check that may include:

• author names and affiliations;
• ORCID information, where provided;
• article title and abstract;
• keywords;
• references and citation consistency;
• tables and figures;
• ethical declarations;
• funding information;
• conflict-of-interest declarations;
• DOI and article metadata; and
• formatting according to journal requirements.

Authors may receive proofs for final correction before publication.

Proof correction is intended primarily to identify production or typographical errors and should not ordinarily involve substantial changes to the accepted manuscript.

13. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential editorial materials.

Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process for personal research, professional advantage, or any other inappropriate purpose.

14. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers are required to disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Where an editor has a conflict involving a submitted manuscript, responsibility for the manuscript will be assigned to another qualified editor who can manage the review and decision-making process independently.

15. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently on the basis of scholarly quality and editorial criteria.

The publisher, journal owner, sponsors, advertisers, or other commercial parties must not interfere with individual editorial decisions.

16. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that a significant procedural or factual error affected an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the journal.

An appeal should identify the specific issue being challenged and provide relevant supporting information.

Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor who was not directly involved in the disputed decision, where practicable.

Complaints concerning editorial procedures, publication ethics, or research integrity are handled according to the journal's complaints and publication ethics policies.