Peer Review

The SDU University Bulletin: Pedagogy and Teaching Methods employs a double-blind review system, ensuring that the identities of both the reviewers and authors remain undisclosed to each other during the review process of a manuscript. The peer review process is designed to uphold the journal's rigorous research and theoretical standards. Each manuscript is assigned to at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field and are tasked with delivering a thorough and impartial assessment to ensure that all published works align with the journal’s objectives. Reviewers are selected from among leading international and Kazakhstani scholars and are entrusted with providing an objective and comprehensive assessment of the submission. Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a minimum of 80% original content.

Manuscript Review and Publication Process

Manuscripts are accepted exclusively through the online submission system.

Upon submission, each submission undergoes an initial review to verify its alignment with the journal’s scope, compliance with editorial guidelines, and adherence to technical formatting standards.
All submissions are subjected to plagiarism detection and AI-generated content verification using the Turnitin system. Following this evaluation, the technical editor forwards the manuscript to the editor-in-chief for further peer review.
The editor-in-chief is responsible for selecting candidates for blind peer review, ensuring that reviewers possess the relevant expertise. Manuscripts are sent for review without disclosing the identities of the authors.
Reviewers may not be co-authors of the manuscript under review, nor may they be the academic supervisor of the degree candidates.
Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the private property of the authors and contain confidential information that must not be disclosed. If the review of the article indicates the need for correction, then the article is sent to the author for revision.
The reviewer is required to evaluate the manuscript within 2 to 4 weeks.
Based on the reviews’ expert evaluation, the reviewers may: 1) Recommend the manuscript for publication; 2) Recommend the rejection of the manuscript.
The reviewer’s comments and suggestions (without disclosing their personal information) are forwarded to the author.
If the review includes recommendations for revisions or improvements, the journal's editors send the review to the author, suggesting that these recommendations be addressed in the revised manuscript or substantiated (either partially or fully) in response.
The revised manuscript is resubmitted for peer review. If the manuscript is returned to the author for revision, it must be resubmitted within one month.
If the author declines to revise the manuscript, they must inform the editorial board, either in writing or orally, of their decision to withdraw the manuscript from publication. Should the author fail to submit a revised version within one month from the date the reviewer’s feedback was provided, the editorial board will remove the manuscript from consideration. In such cases, the author will be notified of the manuscript's removal due to the expiring revision deadline.
In cases of irreconcilable disagreements between the author and reviewers regarding the manuscript, the editor-in-chief will make the final decision during a meeting of the editorial board.
The decision to reject a manuscript for publication is made by the editorial board in accordance with the reviewers' recommendations. Manuscripts not recommended for publication by the editorial board will not be reconsidered. The author will be notified of the rejection via their account.
A positive review does not constitute sufficient grounds for the publication of a manuscript. The editorial board makes the final decision regarding its suitability for publication. In cases of conflict, the editor-in-chief will make the final decision.
The editorial board does not engage in discussions with authors concerning its decisions.
Reviews are kept on the journal's editorial board for three years.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria for Reviewers

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

Significance: Does the manuscript demonstrate sufficient novelty and relevance in the field of pedagogy and teaching methods?
Literature Review: Does the manuscript include a well-structured, analytical review of relevant literature? Is there a coherent and thoroughly developed theoretical or conceptual framework?
Research Design: Does the manuscript demonstrate an appropriate design and methodology that aligns with the journal’s requirements? What is the quality of the data presented and its analysis?
Discussion: Do the discussion and conclusion highlight the significance of the results for research, policy, and practice?
Style: Is the manuscript clear, coherent, and concise? Does it comply with the formatting and style requirements of APA 7 or GOST 7.1-2003?

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ evaluations, the editorial board will make the following decisions. Reviewers may provide recommendations regarding the manuscript's suitability for publication as follows:

Decline Submission: The manuscript is deemed unsuitable for publication in the journal.
Resubmit for Review (Major Revisions Required): The manuscript may be reconsidered for publication following substantial revisions.
Revisions Required (Minor Revisions): The manuscript may be accepted for publication after addressing minor revisions as specified.
Accept: The manuscript can proceed to the subsequent stage of the editorial process without additional edits.

It is worth noting that the most frequent recommendations for manuscripts upon initial review are Decline Submission and Resubmit for Review (major revisions required). The initial decision is typically provided within 2 to 4 weeks following the submission of the revised manuscript; however, the duration of the review process may vary depending on the specific circumstances.