Peer Review Process

Overview of the Review Process

All submitted manuscripts undergo a multi-stage evaluation process consisting of:

Phase 1 – Initial Editorial Screening

Conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editorial Board member.

This stage evaluates:

  • Alignment with the journal’s scope

  • Compliance with author guidelines and formatting requirements

  • Clarity of research objectives

  • Basic methodological soundness

  • English language readability

  • Similarity index screening (plagiarism detection software)

Desk rejection may occur at this stage if:

  • The manuscript falls outside the journal scope

  • Similarity index exceeds 20% (excluding references and legitimate quotations)

  • There are serious methodological flaws

  • The manuscript fails to meet academic writing standards

Authors are informed promptly if the manuscript does not proceed to peer review.

Phase 2 – Double-Blind Peer Review

Kalamatika employs a double-blind peer review system, where:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s topic.

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  1. Relevance to mathematics education

  2. Originality and novelty

  3. Theoretical grounding and conceptual clarity

  4. Methodological rigor

  5. Analytical depth and interpretation of findings

  6. Coherence among title, abstract, objectives, results, and conclusions

  7. Contribution to theory, policy, or classroom practice

  8. Adequacy and currency of references

  9. Ethical compliance

Reviewers provide detailed comments and a recommendation.

Editorial Decision Categories

Based on reviewers’ reports and editorial judgment, the Editor-in-Chief will issue one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept Submission

  2. Accept with Minor Revisions

  3. Major Revisions Required (Resubmit for Review)

  4. Resubmit Elsewhere

  5. Decline Submission

Clarification of Decisions

  • Minor revisions require editorial verification of changes.

  • Major revisions require re-evaluation, potentially by original reviewers.

  • If substantial changes are required, resubmission may initiate a new review cycle.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory; final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief.

Grounds for Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected due to:

  • Lack of relevance to the journal scope

  • Insufficient originality or contribution

  • Fundamental methodological errors

  • Inadequate theoretical framework

  • Ethical concerns

  • Similarity index above acceptable threshold

  • Failure to respond to reviewers’ comments without logical justification