Peer review process
The journal Alexandria adopts the anonymous double-blind peer review in its editorial process.
Submitted articles are initially pre-assessed by the editorial team during the desk review stage, where originality, contribution, relevance, thematic relevance, overall structure, compliance with editorial policies, and author guidelines are evaluated, and text similarity (plagiarism) is checked. Failure to meet any of these criteria results in the rejection and archiving of the article. The average time for this initial decision is approximately 30 days.
If the article receives a positive evaluation in the previous stage, it will be forwarded to two external reviewers with a PhD and expertise in the subject matter of the submitted article. If there is a divergence in the evaluations, a third reviewer will be designated, and so on, until a final decision is made. Authors who have already published in the journal may be invited to provide the review.
Articles are evaluated using the journal’s own evaluation form. According to the evaluation guidelines, the manuscripts must:
- contain a clear and well-supported argument, demonstrating a close connection between the stated objectives of the work, the literature review, the research conducted, and the implications for practice;
- address the topic in such a way that a definite advance in knowledge is demonstrated;
- Include a critical review of the relevant literature;
- demonstrate, if applicable, that empirical investigations have been conducted in a technically competent manner;
- include a critical assessment of the conclusions;
- discuss, whenever possible, the implications of the research for the practice of science and technology education.
The editor responsible for the review process will notify the author of one of the following decisions: “acceptance without revisions”, “mandatory revisions” (with or without a new round of peer review), or “rejection” and archiving of the article.
In cases of “mandatory revisions”, the author will have 30 days to submit the revised article and a response letter to Alexandria, addressing the changes made. A detailed justification must be provided if the suggestions are not complied with. The editor responsible for the review process will forward the revised manuscript and the response document to the reviewers, when appropriate, to assess whether the revisions have met the requirements and to determine whether the article should be accepted, rejected, or still requires further modifications.
If the final evaluation of the manuscript is “rejected”, the author will be notified of the reason for the decision, and the manuscript will be archived.
After acceptance for publication, the final version of the article must be submitted in accordance with the journal’s template. Any errors found after the proofreading stage will be the sole responsibility of the authors.
The journal may reject articles that contain content similar to other works (plagiarism) at any stage of the editorial process in which it is identified.
