Manuscript Evaluation Criteria for Pedagogy


The process of evaluation. Pedagogy uses Open Journal Systems (OJS) for electronic article submission and Double-Blind Peer Review. The reviewers of the manuscript do not know the identity of the author(s) and the author(s) do not know the identity of the reviewers.

The received manuscript is first reviewed by editors, looking whether the article meets the formal requirements, whether the problem  analyzed in the article corresponds to the theme of the journal, whether the quality of the article is characterized by at least the minimum potential to be published in the journal.  If the article fails to meet the formal requirements, it is returned to the author(s) for correction. If the article does not correspond to the theme of journal “Pedagogy”, it is rejected without review. If the quality of the article is too low to be published in “Pedagogy”, it is also rejected without review

Fully prepared manuscript is submitted for review to two reviewers (members of the editorial board and, if necessary, the specialists in the field assisting the editorial board). The reviewers are appointed confidentially, the secret review is carried out.  If the problem of the submitted scientific publication is interdisciplinary, one review shall be carried by the scientist of the contiguous area or direction of science. If one reviewer's conclusion is positive and the other is negative, the third reviewer is appointed.

Pay attention on the readers of Pedagogy. We publish articles for educational and interdisciplinary audiences: researchers, educators, lecturers, heads of institutions, teachers, other educators.

Make your approach clear to the author. Review the manuscript from the author's position, however, be critical to its quality. Note your final decision: a) publish as it is; b) publish with minor corrections; c) publish with major corrections; (d) reject. Justify your decision to the author in recommendations. If you recommend publishing as it is, briefly point out the advantages of the article. If you recommend publishing with corrections, please specify what and how must be improved. If you propose to reject the article, justify this decision. In case of making decision to publish with major corrections, the article shall be returned to you for additional review.

Please take into account the time limits. Upon receiving the offer to review the manuscript, please reply whether you accept. Make your review within 1 month.  If there are any obstacles, please inform in advance that you will not be able to prepare your review.


1. Does the title of the manuscript accurately reflect its content? Will the person, reading the annotation, get a clear understanding of what this article is about? Will the keywords help you find this work using the library search systems?
2. What is this scientific paper new, original for? Does it bring a new concept, new research results, or another approach towards the long-analyzed aspect?
3. Do the structure and content of the article meet the requirements for scientific articles, according to the nature of research? Does it meet the requirements for the article, presenting the results of qualitative research? Does it meet the the requirements for the article, presenting the results of the quantitative research? Does it meet the requirements for analysis of theoretical problem? For comparative research etc.? Does the manuscript contain all the required parts?
4. Are the problem, aim and objectives of the research properly formulated? Does the aim match the problem? Does the implementation of the objectives make it possible to achieve the goal?
5. Is the literature review accurate, balanced, systematic, based on the most recent sources? Are the leading research, published in authoritative scientific publications, reviewed? Are there any additional sources that you would recommend to introduce?
6. Is the research methodology described and justified? Is the research access justified (qualitative / quantitative / mixed research)? Are the data collection and data analysis methods and procedures named and justified? Are they sufficiently detailed, however, brief enough?
7. Are the results of the research detailed, properly structured? Are they reasoned enough? Do they meet the requirements forquantitative / qualitative data submission?
8. Is the illustrative material (tables, charts, graphs, etc.) in the text compliant to the requirements of APA 6th edition? Is the illustrative material clear and of good quality?
9. What is the depth, the level of argumentation and value of the scientific discussion? Are generalizations and conclusions related to the scientific problem, the aim of the article as well as to the research results?
10. Do the references in the text and the list of literature are compliant to the requirements of APA 6th edition?
11. Is the style of the manuscript language scientific, however, clear to the reader? Are there any language style and other errors?