Steps for Paper Publishing

Submission and Publication Process

The Journal of Psychology & Education is committed to providing authors with a rigorous, fair, independent, confidential, transparent, and efficient editorial and publication process.

The following steps describe the typical pathway from manuscript submission to online publication. Processing times may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the extent of revision required, the need for specialist or statistical advice, research-integrity checks, and the responsiveness of authors and reviewers.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance, peer-review completion, an editorial decision, or publication within a fixed timeframe. Scholarly quality, research integrity, editorial independence, and the thoroughness of peer review will not be compromised to meet a processing target.

Step 1: Online Submission

Authors must submit manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system.

Before submission, authors should ensure that:

  • the manuscript falls within the journal’s aims and scope;
  • the manuscript is written in English;
  • the work has not been published previously;
  • the manuscript is not under consideration by another journal;
  • all listed authors have approved the manuscript and its submission;
  • all authors satisfy the journal’s authorship requirements;
  • all required declarations and supporting files have been provided;
  • the submission complies with the journal’s publication ethics policies.

To support double-anonymous peer review, authors must upload the following as separate files.

Title Page

The title page should include:

  • manuscript title;
  • author names;
  • institutional affiliations;
  • corresponding-author details;
  • ORCID identifiers, where available;
  • funding information;
  • acknowledgements;
  • author-contribution statements;
  • conflict-of-interest declarations;
  • data-availability information;
  • complete ethics and informed-consent information, where applicable.

The title page is available to the editorial office but is not normally sent to reviewers.

Anonymous Main Manuscript

The anonymous manuscript should include:

  • manuscript title;
  • abstract;
  • keywords;
  • main text;
  • references;
  • tables and figures;
  • figure captions;
  • appendices, where applicable.

It must not contain author names, affiliations, email addresses, ORCID identifiers, acknowledgements, institutional logos, identifiable document metadata, or other information that could reveal the authors’ identities.

No fee is charged when a manuscript is submitted.

Step 2: Technical and Research-Integrity Check

Following submission, the editorial office conducts an initial technical and administrative examination.

The journal checks whether:

  • all required files have been uploaded;
  • the title page and anonymous manuscript have been submitted separately;
  • the manuscript has been adequately anonymised;
  • the submission follows the journal’s basic formatting requirements;
  • authorship and affiliation information is complete;
  • funding and conflict-of-interest declarations have been provided;
  • ethics approval and informed-consent information has been supplied where applicable;
  • tables, figures, references, and supplementary materials are complete;
  • required reporting checklists or supporting documents have been included.

Submitted manuscripts may be screened for text similarity using Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, as part of the journal’s research-integrity assessment.

Similarity reports are reviewed by the editorial team. A numerical similarity score alone does not determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

The editorial office may request clarification or supporting documentation where concerns arise concerning:

  • plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • authorship;
  • research ethics;
  • data or image integrity;
  • conflicts of interest;
  • reporting completeness;
  • other potential publication-ethics issues.

Incomplete, non-compliant, or improperly anonymised submissions may be returned to the authors for correction before editorial assessment.

Technical and administrative checks are normally completed within one to three working days, although additional time may be required where documentation is incomplete or research-integrity concerns arise.

Step 3: Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor assesses the manuscript before external peer review.

The assessment considers:

  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
  • originality and scholarly contribution;
  • theoretical or conceptual foundation;
  • methodological or argumentative rigour;
  • ethical and reporting compliance;
  • clarity and academic presentation;
  • suitability for external peer review.

Following the initial assessment, the editor may:

  • send the manuscript for external peer review;
  • request limited technical or reporting corrections;
  • request additional documentation or clarification;
  • recommend a more appropriate article category;
  • decline the manuscript without external peer review.

A manuscript may be declined at this stage when it:

  • falls outside the journal’s aims and scope;
  • does not meet minimum scholarly standards;
  • lacks sufficient originality or contribution;
  • contains fundamental methodological or argumentative weaknesses;
  • raises unresolved ethical or research-integrity concerns;
  • is not sufficiently developed for external review.

A decision not to send a manuscript for external review does not imply that its subject matter lacks scholarly value.

Initial editorial assessment is usually completed within one to two weeks, depending on manuscript complexity, editorial availability, and the need for clarification or additional documentation.

Step 4: External Peer Review

Research articles and other substantive scholarly submissions that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally evaluated through double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Reviewer selection is based on:

  • expertise relevant to the manuscript;
  • appropriate academic or professional qualifications;
  • recent scholarly activity;
  • independence from the authors and their institutions;
  • absence of relevant financial, professional, supervisory, collaborative, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are usually invited to return their reports within approximately three to five weeks. Additional time may be granted where necessary to ensure a careful and substantive evaluation.

Reviewers are asked to assess, where relevant:

  • originality and scholarly significance;
  • engagement with relevant literature;
  • clarity of the research question, objective, or argument;
  • appropriateness of the research design and methods;
  • statistical, qualitative, conceptual, or argumentative rigour;
  • transparency and reporting completeness;
  • ethical compliance;
  • interpretation of findings or arguments;
  • limitations and implications;
  • organisation and academic presentation.

When reviewer reports differ substantially, the editor may:

  • invite an additional independent reviewer;
  • obtain specialist methodological or statistical advice;
  • request clarification from the reviewers;
  • make an independent editorial judgement based on the available evidence.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.

Step 5: First Editorial Decision

After considering the manuscript and reviewer reports, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision;
  • Reject and Resubmit;
  • Reject.

Acceptance without revision is uncommon.

An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance. A manuscript is accepted only when the editor is satisfied that it meets the journal’s scholarly, methodological, ethical, and editorial standards.

For manuscripts sent for external peer review, the first post-review decision commonly takes approximately five to eight weeks from submission, although this may be shorter or longer depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, research-integrity checks, and the need for specialist or statistical advice.

Step 6: Revision and Author Response

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must normally submit:

  • a clean revised manuscript;
  • a version showing or tracking changes, where requested;
  • a detailed point-by-point response to the editor and reviewers;
  • any additional files or documentation requested by the editorial office.

The response document should:

  • reproduce or clearly identify each editor and reviewer comment;
  • provide a specific response to each comment;
  • explain what changes were made;
  • identify where the changes appear in the revised manuscript;
  • provide a reasoned scholarly explanation where a requested change was not adopted.

The time allowed for revision depends on the extent and complexity of the requested changes. Authors who require additional time should contact the editorial office before the applicable revision deadline.

Depending on the nature of the revisions, the manuscript may be:

  • evaluated by the handling editor;
  • returned to the original reviewers;
  • sent to an additional independent reviewer;
  • subjected to further similarity, technical, statistical, or ethical checks.

More than one round of revision may be required.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

Step 7: Final Editorial Decision

After evaluating the revised manuscript, author response, reviewer reports, and any additional supporting information, the editor issues a final decision.

A manuscript is accepted only when the editor is satisfied that:

  • substantive editor and reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed;
  • the conclusions or arguments are supported by the evidence presented;
  • the manuscript meets relevant methodological or argumentative standards;
  • the submission complies with ethical and reporting requirements;
  • the manuscript is suitable for publication in the journal.

Additional external review may be required where substantial concerns remain unresolved or where major new analyses, arguments, data, or materials have been added.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, rigour, ethical compliance, clarity, and relevance to the journal.

Decisions are independent of the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, professional status, gender, ethnicity, religion, political views, or ability to pay publication charges.

Step 8: Formal Acceptance and Publication Charges

After a formal acceptance decision has been issued, the corresponding author receives an acceptance notification and information concerning publication procedures and charges.

A mandatory Article Processing Charge of HKD 2,000 is payable only after the manuscript has:

  • completed peer review;
  • completed all required revisions;
  • received a formal acceptance decision.

The journal does not charge:

  • submission fees;
  • initial editorial-assessment fees;
  • peer-review fees;
  • rejection fees;
  • reader-access fees.

Payment does not influence reviewer selection, reviewer reports, editorial assessment, revision requirements, or acceptance decisions.

Following formal acceptance, authors may voluntarily request an enhanced language-editing service for HKD 2,000. This service is optional and separate from the Article Processing Charge and peer-review process.

The use or non-use of language editing, translation, formatting assistance, or other author services does not influence editorial decisions, publication priority, or production scheduling, and does not guarantee preferential treatment or accelerated processing.

Step 9: Production and Author Proof

Accepted manuscripts enter production only after the final editorial decision has been issued.

Production may include:

  • copyediting;
  • language and formatting checks;
  • typesetting;
  • reference verification;
  • metadata preparation;
  • DOI preparation and registration;
  • author proof review;
  • final quality-control checks.

The corresponding author receives a proof for review.

At the proof stage, authors should check:

  • author names and affiliations;
  • title, abstract, and keywords;
  • tables and figures;
  • references and DOI information;
  • funding and acknowledgements;
  • ethics and conflict-of-interest statements;
  • typographical and production errors.

Proof correction is intended primarily to address production errors and minor factual corrections. Substantial changes to the accepted content require editorial approval and may require additional review.

Authors should return corrected proofs promptly to avoid unnecessary publication delays.

Step 10: Online Publication

After production, author proof approval, and final quality-control checks, the article is published as the final Version of Record.

The journal uses a rolling online publication model. Articles may be published online individually when ready and subsequently assigned to an issue in accordance with the journal’s publication schedule.

Each published article receives:

  • an individual article landing page;
  • a permanent DOI;
  • complete bibliographic metadata;
  • an openly accessible full-text version;
  • a clearly stated open-access licence;
  • information concerning copyright and author rights.

Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, unless otherwise stated for specific third-party material.

Authors retain copyright in their published work.

Accepted manuscripts are normally published online within one to three weeks after production checks and author proof approval.

Processing-Time Statement

The time required for technical checking, editorial assessment, external peer review, revision, production, and publication varies between manuscripts.

Factors affecting processing time may include:

  • manuscript complexity;
  • reviewer availability;
  • the need to replace a reviewer;
  • the need for specialist or statistical advice;
  • the extent of revisions required;
  • ethical or research-integrity enquiries;
  • the completeness and quality of submitted files;
  • the authors’ response time.

The journal’s typical processing targets are:

  • technical and administrative check: one to three working days;
  • initial editorial assessment: one to two weeks;
  • reviewer report period: approximately three to five weeks;
  • first post-review decision for externally reviewed manuscripts: approximately five to eight weeks from submission;
  • acceptance to online publication: normally one to three weeks after production checks and author proof approval.

Any turnaround times published by the journal represent approximate or typical processing targets and do not constitute a guarantee.

The journal does not guarantee:

  • that every submission will be sent for external peer review;
  • acceptance;
  • publication;
  • an editorial decision within a fixed period;
  • publication within a fixed number of days.

The journal will not compromise scholarly quality, research integrity, editorial independence, reviewer confidentiality, or the thoroughness of peer review solely to meet a processing target.