Revista de Pedagogie Digitala employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scholarly merit of all published research. This policy outlines the procedures, timelines, and standards that guide the peer review process.

Review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo a two-stage evaluation. In the first stage, each manuscript receives preliminary assessment by at least two members of the editorial team to determine its suitability for peer review, relevance to the journal’s scope, and adherence to submission guidelines. The journal secretariat performs plagiarism screening before any content analysis, in accordance with the journal’s zero-tolerance plagiarism policy (including self-plagiarism), as detailed in the Ethics Policy.

Manuscripts that pass this initial screening are anonymised — all author-identifying information is removed — and sent to two independent external scholars with relevant expertise for double-blind peer review. This process protects both author and reviewer identities, ensuring objective evaluation based solely on the scholarly merit of the work.

Reviewer selection and responsibilities. Reviewers are selected from the journal’s database based on their demonstrated expertise in the manuscript’s specific topic area, their track record of constructive reviews, and their standing in the academic community. The journal maintains a diverse pool of reviewers across geographic regions, institutional affiliations, and areas of specialisation. Careful attention is given to avoiding conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are expected to accept only manuscripts relevant to their expertise, maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, complete reviews in a timely manner (typically three to four weeks), and treat all work fairly without prejudice. Reviewers provide recommendations to accept, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, or reject, accompanied by detailed comments and specific guidance for improvement.

Editorial decisions and author communication. Following receipt of peer review reports, the Editor-in-Chief and the journal secretariat evaluate the assessments and make the final editorial decision. For each editorial decision, a secretariat of at least two governing body members convenes. In cases where reviewers disagree significantly, a third reviewer may be consulted.

Authors receive detailed feedback including anonymised reviewer comments and clear guidance on any required revisions. For manuscripts requiring revisions, authors are given two to four weeks for minor revisions and six to twelve weeks for major revisions. Revised manuscripts are returned to the original reviewers when possible.

The journal is committed to providing initial decisions within two weeks of submission, including notification of whether the manuscript is suitable for full peer review.

Right to appeal. Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions by providing a detailed written justification to the Editor-in-Chief and the journal secretariat. The full procedure is described in the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Quality assurance. The editorial team regularly evaluates reviewer performance, solicits feedback from authors and reviewers, and updates review guidelines to reflect evolving best practices in scholarly publishing. The journal maintains detailed records of the peer review process for each manuscript.