PIEJ is open to research articles on basic, indigenous, and higher education within the Philippine educational system and in the global educational context.


         PIEJ adopts the double-blind review system, which means that the identities of both the reviewers and the authors are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

         Qualification of the Peer Reviewers: The peer reviewers must have published research articles in the field of education.

         Term: The peer reviewers’ term is per issue and is renewable for the succeeding issues.

         Roles/Functions: The peer reviewers perform the following roles and functions for the journal:

                            a. provide a detailed, objective report on the merits of an article;

                            b. identify flaws in the design of the research, and in the analysis and interpretation of results;

                            c. highlight ethical concerns;

                            d. comment on the appropriateness of the literature cited; and

                            e. offer their view on the suitability of an article for publication in the journal.


  1. Review papers within your field of expertise
  2. Any reviewer who feels he/she is not competent to review a particular manuscript must return it to the editor immediately.
  3. A reviewer must make available to the journal, personal and professional details that are truthful and exact representation of their competency.
  4. Reviewers must treat manuscript work with utmost confidentiality and must not make others aware of the details of any manuscript they review during or after the process of review.
  5. Reviewers should not use information from the manuscript for their own benefit or that of other bodies before they are published.
  6. Reviewers must be impartial, desisting from being provocative and from making defamatory or offensive personal comments.
  7. Reviewers must make known any competing or conflict of interest, be it personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious. Where they are not sure, the reviewer should seek clarification from the editor.
  8. Reviewers should decline to review if the manuscript under review is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.
  9. If there is evidence of plagiarism, duplicate submission to another journal, unethical research design or excessive fragmentation of results to achieve multiple publications of manuscript, the reviewer should comment on them.
  10. The reviewer’s identity must be kept anonymous throughout the review process, unless they have authorized disclosure
  11. The reviewer must report to the editor any similarities between the manuscript under review and any published paper submitted to the same or another journal.
  12. The reviewer must not make known to others, without the consent of the editor or author, any unpublished information, arguments or interpretations contained in the manuscript under consideration.
  13. A reviewer should not review a manuscript of an author with whom he/she has a personal or professional relationship, if such relationship will affect the judgment of the manuscript.


  1. Editors must acknowledge the receipt of manuscripts in a timely manner and ensure that the editorial and peer review processes are fair, efficient, and responsive.
  2. Editors must make sure that the submitted manuscripts remain confidential throughout the editorial and peer-review process.
  3. The editors’ decision to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based purely on the paper’s quality, originality, and clarity, as well as its relevance to the focus of the journal.
  4. In the spirit of transparency, the nature and method of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to explain any important nonconformity to the described processes.
  5. The editors must attend immediately to any complaints in an open and respectful manner, and must ensure that there is a well laid out mechanism for handling any grievances.
  6. The editors must not be partial in the judgment of manuscripts. Each manuscript must be considered independent of background, religion, gender, race, institutional affiliation, etc.
  7. To avoid issues on conflict of interest, any manuscript authored by the editor must not be handled by the editor him or herself but must be given to some other qualified editor to manage.
  8. If errors are discovered in a published paper, the editors should aid in the preparation of a report indicating the outlined errors and if possible, provide correction to such errors.
  9. Editors should publish corrections if errors are discovered that could affect the interpretation of data or information presented in an article.
  10. Editors should ensure that there is a clear guideline that defines the criteria for authorship. Any author who does not meet such criteria must be omitted from the list of contributors.
  11. Editors should be very cautious when publishing images of objects that might have cultural significance or cause offense.
  12. To ensure that the aforementioned ethical considerations are observed, the editors shall adhere to the following policies and principles throughout the review and publication processes: a. Peer Review; b. Authorship; c. Copyright; d. Originality/Plagiarism;e. Open Access Policy; and f. Retraction Policy.