Peer Review Process

  1. Submission and Initial Screening

  • All manuscripts submitted to Celsius will undergo an initial screening by the editorial team. This screening is to ensure that the submission fits within the scope of the journal and meets the basic standards of scientific writing and ethical conduct.

  • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be forwarded to appropriate peer reviewers. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria will be rejected or returned to the authors for revision.

  1. Selection of Reviewers

  • Celsius operates a double-blind peer review process, where both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other.

  • The editorial team will select at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. The reviewers are chosen based on their expertise, academic credentials, and lack of conflict of interest.

  • In some cases, additional reviewers may be consulted if the manuscript covers multiple disciplines or if conflicting reviews are received.

  1. Review Process

  • Reviewers are expected to provide a thorough, fair, and unbiased assessment of the manuscript. They will evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria, including:

    • Originality and significance of the research
    • Methodological rigor and validity
    • Clarity and coherence of the writing
    • Relevance to the field of physics education
    • Adequacy of the references and theoretical grounding

  • Reviewers will be asked to provide specific comments and recommendations regarding the manuscript, which may include:

    • Accept without revision
    • Accept with minor revisions
    • Request major revisions and resubmission
    • Reject
  1. Revision and Resubmission

  • If revisions are required, the authors will be provided with detailed feedback from the reviewers. Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts accordingly and submit a revised version along with a detailed response to the reviewers' comments.

  • Revised manuscripts will be re-evaluated by the original reviewers, who will assess whether the revisions have adequately addressed their concerns.

  1. Final Decision

  • The final decision on the manuscript will be made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the authors’ revisions.

  • The possible outcomes are:
    • Accept for publication
    • Accept with further minor revisions
    • Reject

  • The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to make the final decision, including in cases where the reviewers’ recommendations are conflicting.

  1. Confidentiality

  • All submissions and communications during the peer review process are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from discussing the manuscript with anyone outside of the peer review process or using any information obtained through the review process for their benefit.

  1. Ethical Considerations

  • Celsius adheres to the highest standards of ethical publishing. Any form of academic misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate submission, will result in the immediate rejection of the manuscript and possible sanctions against the authors.

  • Reviewers are also expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and to conduct their reviews objectively, without any personal bias.

  1. Transparency and Accountability

  • The journal is committed to transparency in the peer review process. Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions, and the editorial team will consider appeals carefully and fairly.

  • Reviewers' identities will remain confidential unless they choose to waive their anonymity.

This peer review process is designed to ensure the quality, integrity, and scientific rigor of the research published in Celsius: Current Advances in Physics Education and Research Journal. The editorial team is dedicated to maintaining a fair, timely, and constructive peer review process that supports the advancement of knowledge in the field of physics education.