Review process

Peer Review Process

Higher Education Inquiry (HEI) operates a double-blind peer-review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.

Each submitted manuscript is initially assessed by a Subject Editor for its suitability for HEI’s aims and scope and its compliance with the journal’s submission requirements. Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are sent by the Subject Editor and the Editor-in-Chief to two reviewers who have no conflict of interest with the author(s).

Review Stages

  1. Initial editorial assessment: The Subject Editor evaluates the manuscript’s suitability for HEI and its compliance with the journal’s requirements.
  2. Reviewer assignment: Suitable manuscripts are assigned to two independent reviewers who have no conflict of interest with the author(s).
  3. Double-blind peer review: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using the review rubric corresponding to its article type.
  4. Editorial decision: The editor considers the reviewers’ reports and makes an editorial decision.
  5. Revision: Where revisions are requested, authors must address the reviewers’ comments carefully and submit a detailed Responses to Reviewers’ Comments document together with the required revised manuscript files.
  6. Acceptance and publication: Accepted manuscripts proceed to production and publication after the required documentation, page-proof review, and layout procedures have been completed.

Review Criteria

HEI uses article-type-specific review rubrics. Reviewers score each criterion on a scale from 0 to 10 and provide specific comments to justify their evaluation. Separate review forms are used for Full-Length Research Articles, Critical/Systematic Literature Reviews, Methodological Papers, Practice-Based and Policy Impact Articles, and Academic Papers.

Overall Marking Scheme

Score Descriptor Description Decision
10 Outstanding Exceptional quality. Original, rigorous, insightful, and publishable with almost no additional revisions. Accept
9–9.9 Excellent Very strong quality with only minor revisions in technical and language issues. Significant contribution to higher education scholarship. Accept with minor revisions. No additional reviews required.
8–8.9 Good Clear strengths. Meets journal expectations with some revisions required. Accept with minor revisions. Additional reviews required.
7–7.9 Satisfactory Adequate quality. Contribution is evident but requires substantial improvement. Accept with major revisions. Several rounds of additional reviews required.
6–6.9 Marginally satisfactory Several weaknesses reduce the manuscript’s contribution and impact. Reject
5–5.9 Borderline Major concerns regarding quality, rigor, argumentation, or relevance. Reject
4–4.9 Weak Significant shortcomings in multiple areas. Extensive revision needed. Reject
3–3.9 Poor Serious deficiencies that limit scholarly value. Reject
2–2.9 Very poor Fundamental problems in design, argument, evidence, or presentation. Reject
1–1.9 Unacceptable Extremely weak. Does not meet basic scholarly standards. Reject
0 Not demonstrated Criterion is absent or wholly inadequate. Reject

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submission materials during and after the review process and must not disclose details of a submission to unauthorized parties.

Editors and reviewers must immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief of any conflict of interest relating to the content of the manuscript and/or its author(s). Reviewers with a relevant conflict of interest should not participate in the review.

Revision

Authors who are invited to revise their manuscript must submit a separate file titled Responses to Reviewers’ Comments together with the required revised manuscript files.

The Responses to Reviewers’ Comments document must clearly present each reviewer comment together with the corresponding revision or the author(s)’ specific response. Authors should avoid generic responses such as “already fixed,” “thank you, and we’ve revised this issue in the manuscript,” or “revised, and please refer to page 8.” Specific revisions or explanations should be provided to avoid delays in subsequent rounds of review.

After Acceptance

Following acceptance, authors must sign a copyright transfer form and send it to the article editor before publication. Accepted manuscripts are published in HEI volumes and issues after page proofs have been reviewed and the page layout has been completed.