1. Overview and Objectives

Peer review is an essential component of the editorial and publication process at J-LKF. Its purpose is to ensure that manuscripts selected for publication meet appropriate standards of originality, scientific validity, methodological rigor, analytical quality, and scholarly contribution.

The review process is designed to provide authors with constructive evaluations while assisting editors in making informed, impartial, and evidence-based publication decisions.

All Original Research Articles and Review Articles that pass initial editorial screening are subject to external peer review. Compliance with submission requirements does not guarantee that a manuscript will proceed to external review or be accepted for publication.

Editorial assessment and peer review are conducted with consideration for the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, and Publication Ethics policies.

2. Peer Review Model

J-LKF adopts a double-anonymized (double-blind) peer review model. Under this model, reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities during the review process.

Author identification is maintained separately within the journal's OJS submission metadata. Manuscript files prepared for anonymous review should exclude author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other directly identifying information.

The editorial team coordinates the anonymization process and takes reasonable measures to preserve confidentiality throughout editorial assessment, peer review, and revision.

Each manuscript that passes initial screening is assigned to at least two qualified reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when specialized expertise is required, reviewer reports are substantially inconsistent, or further independent evaluation is necessary.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript undergoes initial editorial screening before assignment to external reviewers. This assessment is coordinated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor.

The initial screening considers the following aspects:

1. Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope.
2. Originality and potential scholarly contribution of the research.
3. Appropriateness of the selected manuscript category.
4. Compliance with Author Guidelines and manuscript preparation requirements.
5. Completeness of manuscript structure, author metadata, and relevant declarations.
6. Adequacy of the research problem, objectives, methodology, and reported evidence.
7. Language clarity and overall academic presentation.
8. Similarity screening and preliminary assessment of possible plagiarism or redundant publication.
9. Accuracy, relevance, and adequacy of citations and references.
10. Compliance with applicable research ethics and publication integrity requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for technical corrections or declined before external peer review.

Manuscripts that satisfy the initial requirements proceed to reviewer selection and assignment.

4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, scholarly qualifications, research experience, publication record, and ability to provide independent and constructive evaluations.

The handling editor is responsible for assigning reviewers whose expertise is appropriate to the manuscript's subject matter and methodological characteristics.

Reviewer selection considers:

• Expertise in the relevant area of physics or physics education.
• Experience with appropriate research methodologies.
• Relevant scholarly publications or demonstrable research expertise.
• Independence from the authors and their research.
• Absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality.
• Availability to complete a timely, substantive review.

Reviewers are expected to decline invitations when they lack the necessary expertise, cannot meet the agreed review schedule, or identify circumstances that may compromise their impartiality.

Editors may invite additional reviewers when a manuscript requires expertise beyond that available from the initially appointed reviewers.

5. Peer Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to relevant scientific, methodological, analytical, and publication standards.

Discipline-Specific Considerations

For physics education manuscripts, reviewers may additionally consider the appropriateness of instructional designs, participant selection, instrument validity and reliability, educational measurements, and statistical or qualitative analyses.

For physics and applied physics manuscripts, evaluation may include the adequacy of experimental procedures, physical assumptions, theoretical models, computational methods, measurement uncertainty, and reproducibility.

Review articles are additionally evaluated for the transparency of literature selection, quality of evidence synthesis, analytical depth, and appropriateness of reporting guidelines.

6. Review Timeline

Reviewers are normally allocated 14 calendar days to complete an assigned manuscript review after accepting the invitation.

The two-week period is the target for an individual review assignment, not a guarantee that the entire editorial process will be completed within 14 days.

The overall processing time may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of review rounds, the extent of revisions required, and the time needed for editorial evaluation.

Reviewers who anticipate a delay should inform the handling editor. The editorial team may extend a review assignment or appoint a replacement reviewer when necessary.

Authors receive editorial notifications regarding decisions and required revisions through the journal's OJS platform.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers are expected to provide written, evidence-based assessments, including specific comments and recommendations for improving the manuscript.

Reviewers may recommend the following outcomes:

Reviewer recommendations serve as expert advice to the editorial team. They do not constitute final publication decisions.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification, obtain an additional independent review, or conduct a further editorial assessment before reaching a decision.

8. Manuscript Revision and Re-Evaluation

Authors receiving a revision decision are required to address the reviewers' and editor's comments carefully and substantively.

Revised submissions should include:

1. A revised manuscript reflecting the requested improvements.
2. A point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment was addressed.
3. A clear justification for recommendations that the authors have not followed.
4. Supporting documents or additional analyses when requested by the editor.

Minor revisions may be evaluated by the handling editor, who may consult the original reviewers where necessary.

Manuscripts requiring major revision may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional qualified reviewers for further evaluation.

Authors must submit revisions within the deadline communicated through OJS or request an extension before the deadline expires.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance. Further revision or rejection remains possible when substantive concerns have not been resolved.

9. Editorial Decision-Making

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor makes editorial decisions by considering reviewer reports, manuscript quality, the adequacy of author revisions, the journal's Focus and Scope, and compliance with publication ethics requirements.

A manuscript may receive a decision of acceptance, revision, or rejection. The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the OJS system.

Editorial decisions are made independently of authors' institutional affiliations, nationalities, personal identities, and financial considerations.

A manuscript authored or co-authored by an editor or a member of the journal's editorial team must be handled by another appropriately qualified editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

Editors who are authors of a submitted manuscript must not participate in reviewer selection, confidential editorial assessment, or publication decisions concerning their own work.

Acceptance is granted only after the responsible editor determines that the manuscript has adequately satisfied the journal's scholarly and ethical requirements.

10. Ethical Responsibilities in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors are expected to maintain professional integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, and scholarly responsibility throughout the evaluation process.

10.1. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Unpublished findings, data, interpretations, and other research materials must not be disclosed, distributed, or used for personal research or advantage.

10.2. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose relevant financial, institutional, personal, professional, or scholarly relationships that could influence the fairness of their evaluations.

Individuals with conflicts that could compromise impartiality must withdraw from the relevant editorial or review assignment.

10.3. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Review reports must be objective, respectful, constructive, and supported by clear scholarly reasoning. Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, and unsupported judgments are unacceptable.

10.4. Research Integrity Concerns

Reviewers who identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, manipulated data, fabricated references, unethical research, or other possible misconduct must report their concerns confidentially to the handling editor.

Suspected misconduct is assessed through the journal's applicable publication ethics procedures. Reviewers should not independently contact the authors or their institutions regarding allegations without editorial authorization.

10.5. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence to public or third-party generative artificial intelligence services.

Peer review assessments must reflect the reviewer's own independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain personally responsible for their reports and must comply with the journal's AI and publication ethics policies.

11. Review Documentation and Editorial Records

J-LKF maintains records of the manuscript evaluation process through its OJS editorial workflow.

Relevant editorial records include reviewer assignments, review recommendations, reviewer reports, editorial decisions, revised manuscripts, and correspondence associated with the review process.

These records support the transparency, accountability, consistency, and evaluation of editorial practices.

Access to confidential review records is restricted to authorized editorial personnel. Such records may be used for legitimate editorial quality assurance or accreditation assessment subject to applicable confidentiality and data protection requirements.

12. Editorial Appeals and Review Concerns

Authors who believe that an editorial decision involved a substantial procedural error, an undisclosed conflict of interest, or a demonstrable factual misunderstanding may submit a reasoned appeal through the journal's official editorial contact.

An appeal must identify the manuscript and editorial decision, describe the specific concern, and provide relevant supporting information.

The Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately independent editor will consider whether further assessment is warranted. Appeals involving a conflicted editor must be handled by an independent editor.

An appeal does not automatically result in manuscript acceptance, the reopening of review, or a reversal of the original decision.

Authors and reviewers may communicate relevant procedural concerns through the journal's official OJS correspondence or contact channels.