International Journal of Science, Technology and Education (IJSTE)

International Journal of Science, Technology and Education (IJSTE) The International Journal of Science, Technology, and Education (IJSTE) is a four-times-a-year education journal read worldwide. Experts in the field read and review the articles. How to Put Out an Article • We want to see papers that use different qualitative, quantitative, and mixed study methods. • The Journal wants papers with new ideas. • Studies that use meta-analysis are given the most weight by the Journal. • The stories haven't been told anywhere else. Let's say that the piece was presented at a meeting or gathering. In that case, you should include the name of the meeting, the name of the school where it was given, and the date. • The IJSTE gives more weight to new studies that use advanced research and statistical methods. • If you want to publish in IJSTE , you must make a new contribution to the field and have a good method. • The people who wrote the pieces are responsible for what's in them. • You can't quote a story without crediting IJSTE and the author(s). • The Journal is written in English. The papers must be written in this language. Review the steps for submitting a manuscript and getting it published. Editorial Board: A Review • When a manuscript is sent to IJSTE, the editing board looks at it first. They look at the point, the theme, the content, the way it is presented, and the writing skills. • Papers that meet the standards for the pre-assessment are sent to referees. • If necessary, the Editorial Board can ask experts (anonymous readers) what they think about a paper before a judge looks at it. Editorial Board can use what experts say to make decisions. Pre-evaluation criteria for the Editorial Board • At first glance, quantitative research with only one variable or that mostly looks at frequency, percentage, difference, and correlational data is usually thrown out. • When choosing if a study about making a measurement tool can be shared on its own, the legality, scope, quality of the group that worked on it, and usefulness of the reliability and validity studies are considered. • Empirical studies need qualitative data to back them up, explain them, and add to them. • Dependability and validity studies and a close look at the data are the most important parts of qualitative research. • The journal wants to publish critical studies that look at the biggest problems in science education and suggest ways to solve them. But these studies shouldn't look like parts of a book and shouldn't just be based on a literature review. • For mixed studies, the authors must explain why they picked this method and how it works. Referees are judged by a process. • Manuscripts that pass the Editorial Board's review are sent to two experts in the same field (this is called "double blind peer review"). If the reviewers have different opinions about how good your work is, it will be sent to a third reader. If the papers get good reviews from the reviewers, they will be picked to be released. • The judges' reports are kept hidden. Authors must consider the comments, ideas, and changes made by the judges and Editorial Board. • Articles are sent to judges with a form that fits how studies are done. • The members of the Editorial Advisory Board rate articles and decide whether or not to publish them. • Critics are expected to explain their thoughts about the criteria on the article evaluation form and anything else related clearly, directly, and scientifically. If a referee's opinion does not have a clear scientific reason, it is not considered. So, just checking off the categories on a form is not a real review. Transparency: All contacts between the author and editor, evaluators, the Editorial Board, and judges are open to the public. This is not true when the Editorial Board, critics, and author talk about a study. Also, the reviews' names are never sent with the reports to the writers. • If the reviewer thinks the study has problems with ethics, data correctness, or academic issues, they should tell the editor.In addition to a thorough and consistent review process, the editor may want the judges to comment on each other's reports to help the author in school. At this point, no one knows who the judges are. Both parts are judged based on the above things. Judges are chosen based on a lot of different things. Referees are chosen based on how important their field of study is to the job and how much experience they have. • Some writers might not want their work sent to certain reviews because they have a conflict of interest. Writers should explain this when they send their works to IJSTE. • Sometimes, they change the list of judges based on how they do it. What the ref does • First, the judge should ensure the paper sent to him can be read. • The reader should let the editor know if he has enough time to analyze the study and if the topic is important enough for him to do so. • If the reviewer has a conflict of interest and thinks he can't review the study properly, he should tell the editor that he can't do it. • The editor's note sent by e-mail should be carefully read by the judge. Because the editor may only want the judge to examine the study's methods. • If the referee had help from another referee, he needs to tell the editor who that other referee is. How to Write a Report: • These questions should be at the center of referee reviews: a. Do the facts and results of the study back up the argument? b. Will the study teach us something new? • Reviews by referees should be honest and critical. • Referees should only look at the text, not the writer's skills. • Referees are supposed to write the grade on the review form and explain what went wrong and why. Referees who give a bad review should tell the author that the paper was rejected because there wasn't enough study and why. • Editors can fix mistakes in reviewer reports, author statements, and the information itself. Time: It takes a referee 15 days to review a study. • If the judge thinks he won't have enough time to evaluate the study in the time given, he can either ask for more time or tell the editor that he won't be able to evaluate the study because he doesn't have enough time. So, the author doesn't waste time, and the editor has time to find a new judge. Conflict of Interest: If someone has a conflict of interest, the author might not want them to be a judge.Editorial Board wants judges to inform the editor about anything that might make it hard to do a fair review. Policy and Values in Broadcasting • Even if the Editorial Board and Editor work hard on a study, they might miss some outliers and ethical problems. Judges who are experts in the field need to tell the Editorial Board or the editor when they see something like this. Comment to the Referees: • Only the judge who wants to see it again can see the finished form of a study that will be made public. If the reader doesn't want to examine the study again, the editor decides if the changes were made well enough. • Once a study is out, readers may learn that their thoughts were not exactly said. It's possible that the other judges had a different opinion, and the editor thought about that. In this case, the judge who reviewed it can ask the other officials what they thought if he wants to. • The Editorial Board picked one of the following based on what the judges said: - The study might be allowed to be released, but small or big changes might be asked for. - The referees' notes could be used to start a new review process by asking the writers to change how their study is set up. - The study might not be accepted.