Peer Review Process

Research articles or manuscripts submitted to CORE undergo an initial review by the editors to assess alignment with the journal's focus on digital education leadership, technology integration, and administrative innovations, as well as overall writing quality. This preliminary screening ensures that submissions address contemporary issues such as digital transformation in school leadership or tech-driven administrative efficiency. Only those meeting CORE's scope will proceed to a double-blind peer review. The review process typically spans 4-6 months to allow for thorough evaluation of technological and methodological aspects.
Two expert reviewers, selected based on their expertise in digital education, technology, or administration, will evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers are given 4 weeks to provide feedback, focusing on criteria such as innovation in digital tools, methodological rigor, and relevance to global educational challenges. If discrepancies arise between reviewers, a third reviewer—often with specialized knowledge in emerging technologies—will be appointed. Reviewers use a standardized digital evaluation form and must maintain confidentiality, treating all information as sensitive data in line with digital ethics standards.
The editors' final decision is informed by reviewer recommendations but ultimately rests with CORE's editorial board. Possible outcomes include:
Accepted as written without revisions (for exceptionally clear and innovative contributions).
Accepted with minor revisions (e.g., clarifying technological implementations).
Accepted with major revisions (e.g., strengthening digital leadership frameworks or data analysis).
Rejected (if the manuscript lacks relevance to digital education themes or fails technological validity checks).
Manuscripts deemed inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review, with feedback provided to authors to encourage resubmission after alignment with CORE's digital focus.