Peer Review

Peer Review and Open Reports Policy – RPGE

(Transparency, Integrity and Open Science)**

The RPGE – Online Journal of Policy and Educational Management adopts an ethical, transparent and scientifically rigorous peer-review process, aligned with international standards of Open Science, DOAJ, and the COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics.

To ensure quality, accuracy and credibility, RPGE uses three official peer-review models, applied according to the nature of the manuscript and the agreements established between editors, reviewers and authors.

1. Peer Review Models Used by RPGE

1.1 Double-Blind Peer Review (Primary Model)

  • Authors do not know reviewers’ identities.

  • Reviewers do not know authors’ identities.

  • Manuscripts are fully anonymized before being assigned.

  • Reviews must be technically grounded and academically justified.

Applies to:

  • full research articles, empirical studies, theoretical articles and review studies.

Ensures impartiality, reduces bias and strengthens scientific integrity.

1.2 Single-Blind Peer Review

  • Reviewers know the authors’ identities.

  • Authors do not know who reviewed their work.

Used when:

  • contextual, institutional or methodological information about authors is essential for proper evaluation.

  • the nature of the manuscript benefits from reviewer awareness of authorship.

1.3 Open Peer Review (Open Evaluation)

Aligned with Open Science, adopted only when both reviewers and authors authorize it.

Modes:

a) Open identities (private):

Authors and reviewers know each other, but the review is not published.

b) Open reports (public):

Reviews may be published alongside the article as supplementary material, with:

  • identified reviewer, or

  • anonymous reviewer, based on reviewer preference.

c) DOI assignment for reviews:

Some reviews may receive a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to support:

  • transparency,

  • traceability,

  • recognition of peer-review work,

  • scientific accountability.

Reviewer identity is only disclosed if the reviewer explicitly authorizes it.

2. Publication of Reviews (Open Reports)

RPGE adopts an advanced transparency policy consistent with Open Science.

Published materials (when authorized):

  • full review reports;

  • editor decisions;

  • review rounds;

  • authors’ replies to reviewers;

  • editorial timeline (submission, revisions, acceptance).

Publication of any review requires:

  • reviewer consent,

  • optional author consent (for historical information),

  • editorial validation.

The journal guarantees anonymity when the reviewer chooses not to be identified.

3. Scientific Integrity and Review Standards

Reviews must include:

  • scientific, methodological and theoretical justification;

  • evaluation of coherence, structure and relevance;

  • adherence to the journal’s scope;

  • ethical screening (plagiarism, duplicated content, manipulation);

  • constructive recommendations;

  • clear indication of necessary revisions.

Unacceptable reviews:

  • personal attacks or disrespect;

  • insufficient justification;

  • lack of methodological rigor;

  • ethically inappropriate evaluations.

4. Review Workflow

  1. Editorial screening (desk review)

  2. Ethics and similarity check (iThenticate or equivalent)

  3. Assignment to at least two external reviewers

  4. One or more rounds of revision

  5. Final editorial decision

  6. Editing and publication

    • Reviews may be included, with or without identification, if authorized.

5. Open Science and Transparency

RPGE adheres to Open Science principles by:

  • enabling open peer review options;

  • allowing publication of review reports;

  • encouraging preprint deposition;

  • adopting transparent editorial workflows;

  • ensuring CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 licensing;

  • promoting ethical and traceable evaluation.

Evaluation is treated as a scientific process — not a formality.

6. Confidentiality and Identity Protection

When required:

  • Identities are protected in double-blind mode.

  • Open identities occur only with explicit permission.

  • Anonymous open reports maintain full confidentiality.

No personal information is disclosed without consent.

7. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • maintain confidentiality;

  • declare conflicts of interest;

  • evaluate with impartiality;

  • provide grounded, respectful and constructive reviews.

Authors must:

  • respond to revisions;

  • declare conflicts of interest;

  • follow ethical and methodological standards;

  • respect data integrity and scientific honesty.

8. Final Commitment

RPGE’s Peer Review and Open Reports Policy reinforces:

  • transparency;

  • scientific integrity;

  • ethical responsibility;

  • accountability;

  • Open Science practices.

Peer review in RPGE is a structured and principled process designed to uphold rigorous and responsible scientific communication.