Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

International Journal of Research Studies in Education (IJRSE) is an open access international peer reviewed multidisciplinary journal that publishes quality studies related to education. IJRSE is interdisciplinary in approach, and includes but not limited to reports of qualitative case studies, quantitative experiments and surveys, mixed method studies, action researches, meta-analyses, and discussions of conceptual and methodological issues.

The primary aim of IJRSE is to provide an avenue for novice and experts scholars and researchers to publish and share their work to the academe through an open access environment. The scope of IJRSE is deliberately broad in terms of both topics covered and disciplinary perspective. Topics of interests include but not limited to studies that furthers our understanding of learning in pre-primary, primary, high school, college, university, adult education and to contribute to the improvement of educational processes and outcomes. Furthermore, IJRSE seeks to promote cross-national and international comparative educational research by publishing findings relevant to the scholarly community, as well as to practitioners and others interested in education.

IJRSE is published quarterly with new issues coming out every January, April, July, and October. The journal is separated into two sections: Research Articles and Resource Papers.The editor also welcomes suggestions for special issues dedicated to a particular theme. ONLINE FIRST shall be made available as a manuscript becomes accepted awaiting actual publication.

 

Section Policies

Educational Research

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Educational Resources

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Educational Briefs

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Consortia Academia takes advantage of the efficiency and faster turnaround of the submission, review and publishing processes of the e-journal system, while maintaining the high standards of excellence in traditional, formal, academic journals. Furthermore, as with all formal academic journals, peer review is necessary and required in order to optimize the overall quality and methodological robustness of the final published draft of accepted manuscript. Hence, all articles published in Consortia Academia shall have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and blind refereeing by at least two anonymous referees. Lastly, Consortia Academia is committed to high academic standards, treating publication as a collaborative process between Author, Reviewers and Editors.

Note: Author refers to the corresponding author who is responsible for handling submission and revision of a manuscript, and who may or may not be the lead author listed in the manuscript. For full details, please see section on Submission Process.

 

Publication Frequency

IJRSE is published quarterly with new issues coming out every January, April, July, and October. The editor also welcomes suggestions for special issues dedicated to a particular theme. ONLINE FIRST shall be made available as a manuscript becomes accepted awaiting actual publication.

 

Open Access Policy

Primarily, Consortia Academia provides immediate Open Access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Moreover, Consortia Academia publishes articles by copyright-holder consent to Open Access, meaning it does not require the abolition, reform, or infringement of copyright law. Nor does Consortia Academia require that copyright holders waive all the rights that run to them under copyright law and assign their work to the public domain. By submitting manuscripts to Consortia Academia, copyright holders consent to the unrestricted reading, downloading, copying, sharing, storing, printing, searching, linking, and crawling of the full-text of the work. Most Authors choose to retain the right to block the distribution of mangled or misattributed copies. Some choose to block commercial re-use of the work. Essentially, these conditions block plagiarism, misrepresentation, and sometimes commercial re-use, and authorize all the uses required by legitimate scholarship, including those required by the technologies that facilitate online scholarly research. Consortia Academia recommends copyright holders use one of the Creative Commons Licenses, an easy, effective and increasingly common way for copyright holders to manifest their consent to Open Access. Many other open-content licenses will also work. Copyright holders can also compose their own licenses or permission statements and attach them to their works.

 

Review Guidelines

Consortia Academia is committed to high academic standards, treating publication as a collaborative process between Author, Reviewers and Editors. The goal of the peer review process is to improve the academic and scientific quality of the submissions. Reviewers will work with the Author through a collaborative process to ensure academic and scientific integrity. Constructive criticism is a necessary part of this collaborative effort and as such shall be offered and received in a professional manner. The Editor’s role includes that of being a moderator, in a literal way, of the discourse between Reviewers and Authors, and will enforce ethical standards of behavior in the review and response process.

Note: Reviewers are expected to return their reviews within two weeks (14 days), unless otherwise specified by the Editor.

The two basic components to the review of a manuscript are the Scientific Content and Quality of the manuscript. Either or both of these can be grounds for rejection of the submission and both should be considered within the review.

SCIENTIFIC CONTENT

Although there can be no simple formula for what is acceptable scientific content, below are some basic principles that generally apply.

Relevance – Manuscripts to be considered for publication should falls under the focus and scope of the journal. The journal Editor reserves the right to reject a manuscript if the paper fails to fit into the overall theme of the journal.

Timeliness – Manuscripts should be of significance to the general readership of the current age. Studies that solely consider data coming from a decade ago, unless the findings are currently relevant, are deemed not acceptable.

Originality – Manuscripts that simply reproduces the results of an already published work with no change and adds nothing else is not acceptable. However, in some instances, studies that are of value to a particular community (or context) are acceptable. More specifically, if the analysis methods of an already published work are reproduced, but with a different set of data, or an expanded data set considered, would be more likely to be acceptable.

References - References are used to provide support for assertions within a paper. There is no simple way to determine what assertions do or do not require substantiation. It is within the purview of a reviewer to request references if the reviewer believes a reference is needed where none was provided. Typically, the use of principal source references is encouraged. Refereed publications are more acceptable, thus, if the author uses a non-refereed reference, this may not be considered as an acceptable support. NOTE: All manuscripts submitted to the journal should use the American Psychological Association (APA) formatting and style guide.

Significance In times when an author uses statistical tools in their calculations of the results, the confidence that can be placed on a calculation based on real data is considered essential to any scientific paper. Failure to provide statistical analysis of results is not acceptable. Sample size is an important aspect of statistical confidence limits and small samples need to be identified as such.

Reproducibility – Generally, a scientific paper should be possible for anyone reading the manuscript to reproduce the results. The manuscript, therefore, should provide any and all information necessary for a reader to repeat any analysis contained therein. Any withholding of needed information is unacceptable. However, it is acceptable to use references to accomplish this. To the maximum extent possible consistent with a concise presentation, a manuscript should be self-contained. Extensive mathematical derivations can be moved to an Appendix. Large datasets and detailed software information need not be provided, although it is encouraged to make information regarding software and data available whenever possible.

Comparisons with existing work - To the maximum extent possible, comparisons within a manuscript with already published work should be as unambiguous as possible. If a comparison with previous work is made, the same definitions should be used, as well as the same data. If it is felt that the definitions and/or data of an existing work have problems, then a comparison with that existing work should be done both with the original definitions and/or data, as well as with the changed definitions and/or data.

QUALITY

Quality of the EnglishAll manuscript are expected to be written in good English (American or British usage is accepted, but not a mixture of these). For non-native English speakers, and perhaps even for some native English speakers, the grammar, spelling, usage, and punctuation of the text are very important for an effective presentation. The journal editor will not put a paper into review if the English presentation is inadequate. Furthermore, if the reviewer feels the paper is not readable, the reviewer may reject such a paper on those grounds alone.

Organization - The quality of manuscript includes the issue of how the paper is organized. To some extent, the organization of the content is a style issue and the author should be allowed to do whatever s/he wishes, provided the resulting content can be followed reasonably easily. However, it is appropriate for a reviewer to make recommendations for reorganizing a paper’s content in an effort to improve the presentation. Generally, authors should go over the details mentioned in the Author’s Submission Guidelines for proper manuscript organization.

Quality of Figures/Tables - Figures and tables should be legible as well as easy to read and understand. The journal follows the American Psychological Association (APA) style for figures and tables. Authors should therefore format their manuscript in compliance with APA guidelines. Generally, figures and tables provide supporting documentation and illustrate some important point within the paper. Hence, reviewers can request authors for additional information to make the figures and tables more easily understood.

For more details, please also see APA info on tables and figures.

Completeness - An important issue is whether or not everything that needs to be in the manuscript is actually there. Of particular significance is that all the literature citations should be included in the reference list, and all the items in the reference list should actually be cited somewhere in the text. All figures and tables should have captions that describe their content sufficiently well that interpretation of their content is straightforward. Equations in the text need not all be numbered, but all equations cited in the text should have numbers.

NOTE: Review Report Form (PDF)
Peer reviewing is purely a volunteer service, reviewers are not paid. For reviewer application, please download the Reviewer Application Form (PDF) and email the editor ijr.edu@gmail.com.

 

Submission Process

Consortia Academia takes advantage of the efficiency and faster turnaround of the submission, review and publishing processes of the e-journal system, while maintaining the high standards of excellence in traditional, formal, academic journals. Furthermore, as with all formal academic journals, peer review is necessary and required in order to optimize the overall quality and methodological robustness of the final published draft of accepted manuscript. Hence, all articles published in Consortia Academia shall have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and blind refereeing by at least two anonymous referees. Lastly, Consortia Academia is committed to high academic standards, treating publication as a collaborative process between Author, Reviewers and Editors.

Note: Author refers to the corresponding author who is responsible for handling submission and revision of a manuscript, and who may or may not be the lead author listed in the manuscript.

Author please be sure to fill up the author information/abstract form and use the live template to format your paper before submission.

Peer Review Steps:

  1. The Author creates a login account (if he/she doesn't already have one) and submits his/her paper through the online portal, in one of the accepted file formats.
  2. The system then sends an automated notice, informing the Editor about the submission and its location in the server.
  3. The Editor views the submission and evaluates it for technical compliance with the basic journal standards for focus and scope, formatting, length and style, and English comprehensibility as outlined in the Author’s Submission Guidelines.
  4. The Editor then decides whether the manuscript will be sent out for review, or will be returned to the Author for technical revisions or advised to submit to another journal. For technical revisions, normally the Author is given two weeks (14 days) to revise the manuscript. If extra time is needed, the Author needs to email and notify the Editor.
  5. The Editor then evaluates the subject matter of the submission and accordingly contacts potential reviewers based on his/her judgment of their expertise and skill in evaluating some or all of the content in the submission.
  6. If any Reviewer(s) decline to perform the review, alternates will be consulted until at least two Reviewers are set for the manuscript. Typically, a submission will have three Reviewers (including the Editor), but more may be recruited.
  7. Each Reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript according to the criteria explicitly stated in the Review Guidelines, normally within two weeks (14 days). Each Reviewer annotates the document with his/her general and specific comments and makes one of the following recommendations to the Editor:

    - Accept in present form
    - Accept with minor revisions, no further review requested unless major changes are made in accordance with other reviews (at the discretion of the Editor).
    - Accept with minor revisions, but send the revised manuscript back for further review.
    - Accept with major revisions, automatic further review of the manuscript unless the reviewer requests otherwise.
    - Reject. Further review of the manuscript by a Reviewer is possible if the Editor decides against the reviewer’s rejection recommendation, unless that Reviewer requests otherwise.
  8. Once reviews are complete, the Editor emails the Author the reviews and comments for revision of the manuscript, as necessary based on those recommendations and the Editor's decision in Step 7.
  9. If revision is advised, upon receiving the notification, the Author will have to respond through email if he/she is willing to undertake the revision. Typically, the Author needs to return the revised manuscript within a month (30 days). However, if the Author needs more time to revise the manuscript, an email should be sent to notify the Editor. (NOTE: Failure to meet the deadline will result in the Author having to submit the revised paper as a new submission.)
  10. The Author revises and submits the manuscript for second review using the online portal.
  11. The Editor then decides whether the manuscript will be sent for second review as per decision made in Step 7.
  12. The accepted article then undergoes the layout process and the uncorrected draft sent to the Author for approval.
  13. Upon acceptance of the uncorrected draft, a final offprint version shall be uploaded into the ONLINE FIRST awaiting final assignment of Volume and Issue number.
  14. Print copies of the journal can be requested in advance with corresponding charges.

NOTE: Duration of the entire review to publication process usually takes around 90 to 120 days.

 

Donations

Publishing with open access is not without costs. Consortia Academia defrays those costs from donations, because it does not have subscription charges for its online research content, believing instead that immediate, world-wide, barrier-free, open access to the full text of research articles is in the best interests of the scientific community.

The main goal of Consortia Academia is to provide an avenue for novice and experts scholars and researchers to publish and share their work to the academe through an open access environment. Furthermore, Consortia Academia seeks not to earn profit from publications, however, donations are needed to provide for the maintenance of the infrastructure system for open access environment, develops and maintains electronic tools for peer review and publication, manuscript layout fees, and expenses regarding index inclusions in CrossRef (enabling electronic citation in other journals that are available electronically).

NOTE: For donations please email the editor.

 

Disclaimer

Consortia Academia Publishing makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in its publications. However, Consortia Academia Publishing and its agents and licensors makes no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability for any purpose of the Content and disclaim all such representations and warranties whether express or implied to the maximum extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this publication are the views of the Authors and are not the views of Consortia Academia Publishing.

 

Abstracting/Indexing

CrossRef

Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ)

Global Impact Factor

Google Scholar

Index Copernicus

Microsoft Academic Search

NewJour

OAIster

Open Archives Initiatives

Open J-Gate

Open Journal System

PKP Open Archives Harvester

Ulrichs Database

 

Citing ONLINE FIRST Articles

To cite articles published in the ONLINE FIRST section or in the Advance Schedule issues of IJRSE, please follow the format below:

AUTHOR (YEAR ONLINE). TITLE. JOURNAL. Advance online publication. Available on DATE ACCESS. doi:DOI

For published articles, use conventional APA style formatting:

AUTHOR (YEAR). TITLE. JOURNAL. Volume(Issue), page numbers. doi:DOI

 

 

Print Journal Subscriptions

Print copies of International Journal of Research Studies in Education are available by subscription. Subscription charges are as follows: Asia-Pacific region (US$ 100 – 1 year, US$ 200 – 2 years), other areas (US$ 150 – 1 year, US$ 300 – 2 years)

Please download the Subscription form (PDF) then email to ijr.edu@gmail.com

 

Publication Ethics/Guidelines on Research

Ethical guidelines for research publication

The publication of empirical and other scholarly research articles is a very crucial task in disseminating product of conceptual and pragmatic formulations to contribute for the betterment of scientific knowledge. As a peer-reviewed journal, the rigor of scientific publication is expected to be observed in the course of evaluating papers that are submitted. It is necessary for the authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers to ensure that ethical considerations are being met in every phase of publication process.

Our journal is responsible for ensuring that articles submitted are being evaluated and published based on their merits for publication. We ensure that in every step of the process of publishing papers, appropriate practices in the science of publication are being considered.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of original empirical articles must present precise account of the procedures executed and the intentions for deliberately performing such works. All data should be explicitly stated in the paper along with its specific details and sources to ensure that replication can be done in future researches. Inaccurate or fraudulent accounts stated in submitted research articles would enunciate ethical violations since it is not an acceptable practice in scientific publications.

Data access

Authors must be ready with the raw data of their empirical articles by any chance that editors or reviewers will ask for it. Failure to provide editors or reviewers with such raw data is unacceptable.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors or contributors are required to properly cite and quote sources of literature that they utilized in formulating their research articles. Plagiarism may be manifested in variety of ways such as using another's paper as the author's own paper, intentional or unintentional copying or paraphrasing parts of another's paper without citation, claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism is an unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Redundant or concurrent publication

Authors should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Duties of editors

Publication decisions

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editor’s decisions are based on the manuscript evaluation reports of peer reviewers or editorial board members.

Fair play

An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Double blind reviews will be executed to ensure that biases in the process of evaluating manuscripts. In this type of review, reviewers are not aware of the author’s personal and professional profile, the same way as the authors will not be given information regarding the reviewer’s identity.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations.

Duties of reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

References:

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement (based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors). Retrieved from http://academypublisher.com/ethics.html

(Most of the listed guidelines were derived from the Publication Ethical Guidelines of Academy Publisher and Elsevier).

Compiled by: Mr. Jess Datu



© Consortia Academia Publishing

Print ISSN: 2243-7703 Online ISSN: 2243-7711

Creative Commons License CrossRef Cited by Linking

All articles published in Consortia Academia are CrossRef Enabled and available through Cited by Linking. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Philippines License

Luxury yacht charter, Yacht for sale in Turkey, Gulet salesTekne Kiralama Satılık Tekneler Kiralık Motoryatlar Mavi TurNoleggio caicco en Turchia, Crociera blu e vacanza nautica en TurchiaAlquiler de barcos en Turquia, Cruzero azul en goletas privadosYacht Charter Turkey with motor yacht and Turkish guletsMavi Yolculuk, Mavi Tur, Gulet Kiralama, Kiralık TekneNoleggio e rivenditori caicco en Turchia, crociera e vacanza en goleta turcaAlquiler de Barcos, Goletas, Motoryates y Veleros en TurquiaYachts for Sale, preowned motoryachts, gulets, sailing yachts