Ethical Media Architecture and Educational Technology (EMAET) applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Every manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two reviewers with relevant academic expertise.
Peer review is conducted to assess the manuscript’s originality, methodological rigor, product-development process, integration of ethical, moral, or religious values, scholarly contribution, and suitability for publication. The review process consists of the following nine stages.
The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the journal’s online submission system using the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Authors must complete all required metadata and upload the manuscript according to the journal template and Author Guidelines.
The editorial team examines whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s focus, scope, formatting requirements, ethical standards, and minimum academic quality.
At this stage, the editor verifies that the study employs a systematic research and development design, produces a tangible educational product, and substantially integrates ethical, moral, or religious values. Manuscripts are also screened using similarity-detection software.
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript’s relevance, originality, methodological adequacy, development contribution, and potential value to EMAET readers. Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, methodologically inadequate, insufficiently original, or not based on product development may be rejected without external review.
The handling editor invites at least two reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript’s topic, research and development model, educational product, technological approach, and values-based orientation. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with the authors or the study.
Invited reviewers evaluate the assignment based on their expertise, availability, and possible conflicts of interest. They may accept, decline, or recommend another qualified reviewer.
Reviewers assess the manuscript objectively, confidentially, and constructively. The evaluation covers the originality of the study, clarity of objectives, appropriateness of the development model, development procedures, product quality, value integration, data analysis, findings, discussion, and academic presentation.
Reviewers submit detailed comments and recommend one of the following: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission for review, or rejection.
The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor examine all reviewer reports before making an editorial decision. When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide an independent assessment.
The editor communicates the decision to the corresponding author through OJS. Anonymous reviewer comments and editorial instructions are included to guide the author in revising and improving the manuscript. The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.
Authors must revise the manuscript carefully and submit a response document explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, particularly when major revisions are required.
A manuscript is accepted only after the editor confirms that all academic, methodological, ethical, and technical requirements have been satisfactorily fulfilled.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, proofreading, and online publication. Published articles are made openly accessible and available as downloadable PDF files.
Manuscripts based solely on experiments, surveys, literature reviews, systematic literature reviews, bibliometric studies, qualitative studies, or other nondevelopment designs will not proceed to peer review unless they form an integral part of a systematic educational product-development process.