REVIEW  POLICY

The manuscript evaluation procedure consists of three principal decision-making stages: initial editorial screening, external peer review, and the editorial decision. The complete editorial workflow, including author revisions, professional English-language editing, and Online First publication, is described in Section 5.

1. Editorial Screening

The Editorial Board performs a preliminary evaluation of each submitted manuscript to determine:

1. whether it falls within the thematic scope of the journal and demonstrates a direct and substantive connection to its central research focus;
2. whether it presents a sufficiently clear and identifiable scholarly contribution;
3. whether it complies with the journal’s basic formal, editorial, linguistic, and ethical requirements.

The Editorial Board normally informs the authors about the result of the initial evaluation within 7 days (1 week).

At this stage, one of the following decisions is communicated:

1. the manuscript is qualified for external peer review;
2. the manuscript is returned to the authors with a request to complete or correct specific elements, such as formatting, manuscript structure, metadata, declarations, references, or language;
3. the manuscript is rejected without external peer review, for example because it falls outside the journal’s scope, lacks an identifiable scholarly contribution, or does not meet the journal’s essential requirements.

A manuscript returned for formal or editorial correction is not considered to have entered the external peer-review stage. Further processing begins after the authors submit a corrected version that meets the Editorial Board's requirements.

2. External Peer Review

Each manuscript qualified for external peer review is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

1. their scholarly expertise in the subject of the manuscript;
2. their research experience and academic record;
3. the absence of any conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions;
4. their ability to provide an independent, reliable, and timely assessment.

The reviewers assess, in particular:

1. the originality and scholarly significance of the manuscript;
2. the clarity of the research problem and objectives;
3. the appropriateness of the theoretical framework, methodology, or analytical approach;
4. the coherence and quality of the argumentation;
5. the adequacy and reliability of the evidence, sources, or research material;
6. the relationship between the analysis and the conclusions;
7. the manuscript’s contribution to the journal’s central research focus on the education, formation and human development of children, adolescents and young adults; for nationally or locally focused studies, also their engagement with international scholarship and their relevance beyond the immediate research context;
8. its compliance with relevant academic, ethical, and editorial standards.

As a rule, the external peer-review stage takes up to 56 days (8 weeks).

Reports, book reviews, and other materials of an informational or editorial nature are not normally subject to external peer review. Where such a submission presents original research findings, substantive scholarly analysis, or another contribution requiring academic evaluation, it is treated as a scholarly manuscript and undergoes the standard double-blind peer-review procedure involving at least two external reviewers.

The Editorial Board periodically evaluates the quality of reviews and develops or updates recommendations for reviewers in order to improve the quality and consistency of manuscript assessment.

Once a year, Seminare publishes on its website a collective list of reviewers who have cooperated with the journal, without identifying which reviewer evaluated a particular manuscript.

3. Editorial Decision

Based on the external reviews, the editor responsible for handling the manuscript decides whether to:

1. accept the manuscript for publication;
2. reject the manuscript;
3. return the manuscript to the authors for revision in accordance with the reviewers’ and editors’ comments.

Where revisions are required, the authors are expected to submit:

1. a revised version of the manuscript;
2. a response explaining how each reviewer’s and editor’s comment has been addressed;
3. a justification for any substantive comment that has not been incorporated.

After receiving the revised manuscript, the Editorial Board, excluding any member who has a conflict of interest, assesses the changes introduced and the authors’ responses. The editor responsible for handling the manuscript may then:

1. accept the manuscript for publication;
2. request additional revisions;
3. return the manuscript for an additional round of external review;
4. reject the manuscript.

In the case of substantially divergent reviewer opinions, the editor responsible for handling the manuscript may request an additional review from a third independent expert. Before reaching the final decision, the editor may consult members of the Editorial Board who have no conflict of interest.

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or, where Section 6 applies, by the designated independent handling editor. The decision following receipt of the required external reviews is normally communicated within 7 days (1 week) of receiving the last review.

Authors may challenge an editorial decision and request its reconsideration. Such requests are first considered by the Editorial Board. An author-editor is excluded from any consideration of an appeal or request for reconsideration concerning their own manuscript. If the author disagrees with the Editorial Board’s resolution, the matter may be referred to the President of the Francis de Sales Scientific Society (TNFS), whose decision is final.

Detailed information concerning the standard duration of the editorial process is provided in Section 5.

4. Manuscript Qualification and Rejection Criteria

Manuscripts submitted to Seminare are assessed principally during initial editorial screening and external peer review. The final publication decision takes into account the journal’s thematic profile, scholarly and editorial standards, external reviews, and the authors’ response to the comments received.

4.1. Qualification for external peer review

A manuscript may be qualified for external peer review when it:

1. falls within the thematic scope of Seminare, as defined in the About the Journal section of the journal website;
2. presents an original and clearly identifiable scholarly contribution, such as new research findings, theoretical or critical analysis, a review of the state of research, or a relevant case study;
3. where the manuscript is empirical, technical, descriptive, or data-driven, demonstrates a direct and substantive connection to the education, formation, or human development of children, adolescents, and young adults, and clearly explains the broader scholarly significance of the study; nationally or locally focused studies should also engage with international scholarship and demonstrate relevance beyond their immediate research context;
4. presents a clearly formulated research problem, objective, theoretical framework, and appropriate methodological or analytical approach;
5. is written in comprehensible academic English and is sufficiently well organised to allow reliable scholarly evaluation;
6. complies with the journal’s essential formal and submission requirements, as set out in the official Seminare manuscript template and the Manuscript Structure and Citing section;
7. complies with the applicable principles of publication ethics, research integrity, and transparency, including the requirements set out in the journal’s required Statements, Publishing Ethics Policy, and AI Policy;
8. has not been published previously and is not under consideration by another journal.

4.2. Qualification for publication

Following external peer review, a manuscript may be accepted for publication when:

1. its research problem, objectives, theoretical framework, and scholarly contribution are clearly defined;
2. its methodology or analytical approach is appropriate, transparent, and adequately justified;
3. its argumentation is logically coherent and supported by relevant scholarly literature, evidence, sources, or analysis;
4. its conclusions follow from the material presented and do not overstate the findings;
5. it makes a meaningful and identifiable contribution to the academic profile of Seminare;
6. the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers’ and editors’ comments;
7. the revised manuscript meets the journal’s scholarly, linguistic, formal, ethical, accessibility, and editorial standards.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or, where Section 6 applies, by the designated independent handling editor, on the basis of at least two independent external reviews and, where revisions have been requested, the revised manuscript and the authors’ response to the reviewers’ comments.

4.3. Grounds for rejection

A manuscript may be rejected before external peer review when it:

1. falls outside the thematic scope of Seminare as defined in the About the Journal section of the journal website;
2. lacks a sufficiently clear research problem or identifiable scholarly contribution;
3. where it is primarily empirical, technical, descriptive, or data-driven, does not demonstrate a direct and substantive connection to the education, formation or human development of children, adolescents and young adults or, in the case of nationally or locally focused studies, does not adequately engage with international scholarship or demonstrate relevance beyond its immediate research context;
4. substantially fails to comply with the journal’s formal or editorial requirements and the authors do not correct the deficiencies identified by the Editorial Board;
5. is written or structured in a manner that prevents reliable academic evaluation;
6. has been published previously, is simultaneously under consideration by another journal, or infringes authorship or copyright standards;
7. raises serious concerns regarding plagiarism, fabricated or unreliable references, data integrity, authorship, ethical approval, conflicts of interest, or failure to disclose the use of AI-assisted tools where disclosure is required under the journal’s AI Policy.

A manuscript may be rejected after external peer review when:

1. the reviewers identify fundamental theoretical, methodological, analytical, or evidential weaknesses;
2. the manuscript does not provide a sufficiently original or significant scholarly contribution;
3. the conclusions are not adequately supported by the research material, sources, evidence, or argumentation;
4. the identified deficiencies cannot reasonably be corrected through revision;
5. the authors fail to respond adequately to substantive comments made by the reviewers or editors;
6. an additional review confirms serious concerns regarding the scholarly quality or integrity of the manuscript.

The editor responsible for handling the manuscript may discontinue its consideration at any stage if serious concerns regarding research integrity, publication ethics, authorship, data reliability, or copyright emerge. Before doing so, the editor may consult members of the Editorial Board who have no conflict of interest.

5. Editorial Timeline

For manuscripts submitted in full compliance with the formal, editorial, and ethical requirements of Seminare, the standard editorial process consists of the following stages:

1. Initial editorial screening – up to 7 days (1 week)
   The Editorial Board, excluding any member who has a conflict of interest, assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and complies with the formal, editorial, linguistic, and ethical requirements.
2. External peer review – normally up to 56 days (8 weeks)
   The manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.
3. Editorial decision following peer review – normally within 7 days (1 week) of receipt of the last review
   On the basis of the reviewers’ reports, the editor responsible for handling the manuscript decides whether to accept the manuscript, reject it, request revisions, or, where necessary, seek an additional external review.
4. Author revisions and final editorial assessment – normally up to 14 days (2 weeks)
   Where revisions are required, the authors are normally given up to 14 days to revise the manuscript and submit a detailed response to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments. The Editorial Board, excluding any member who has a conflict of interest, then evaluates the revised manuscript and the authors’ responses. The editor responsible for handling the manuscript determines whether the manuscript can be accepted for publication, requires further revision or review, or should be rejected.
5. Professional English-language editing – up to 28 days (4 weeks)
   To ensure the linguistic quality and readability of published materials, every accepted scholarly article undergoes professional English-language editing.
6. Final editorial preparation and Online First publication – up to 7 days (1 week)
   After language editing, the editor responsible for handling the manuscript oversees the final editorial and pre-publication checks, the assignment or verification of the DOI, and the publication of the article in the Online First section of the journal’s website.

The estimated standard time from submission to Online First publication is approximately 17 weeks (119 days).

The timeframe applies to manuscripts that:

1. comply with the Seminare submission requirements at the time of submission;
2. undergo one round of external peer review;
3. are revised and resubmitted within the standard period specified by the Editorial Board.

If additional review or revision rounds are required, the editorial process may take longer.

If a manuscript does not meet the formal, editorial, linguistic, or ethical requirements at the time of submission, it is returned to the authors for correction before further processing. The time required to prepare and submit the corrected version depends on the authors and is not included in the standard editorial timeframe.

Delays caused by authors, including late submission of revised manuscripts, incomplete responses to reviewers, delayed approval of language corrections, or delayed completion or correction of required Statements or submission documents, are not included in the standard editorial timeframe.

Assignment of an Online First article to a specific volume and issue may take place later, depending on the journal’s publication schedule. This does not affect the date of the article’s first online publication, its DOI, or its public availability.

6. Impartiality and Double-Blind Review

The Editorial Board takes appropriate measures to ensure the impartiality, independence, and integrity of the review process.

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as all other submissions but are handled independently by another suitably qualified editor who has no conflict of interest. If no such editor is available, the publisher appoints an independent external handling editor.

The author-editor takes no part in the initial editorial assessment, the selection or invitation of reviewers, the evaluation of review reports, editorial discussions, or any decision concerning the manuscript, including decisions following revision. The author-editor is not given access to the reviewers’ identities or to confidential editorial deliberations concerning the manuscript. The manuscript undergoes the journal’s standard double-blind peer-review procedure involving at least two independent external reviewers.

If the manuscript is accepted, the published article includes an editorial disclosure identifying the author’s editorial role and confirming that the author took no part in the peer-review process or any editorial decision concerning the article. For manuscripts covered by this provision, these safeguards apply throughout the entire editorial process and take precedence over any general allocation of editorial responsibilities elsewhere in this policy.

Seminare applies a double-blind peer-review model, which means that:

1. reviewers do not know the authors’ identities;
2. authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.

Authors provide their full names, affiliations, ORCID identifiers, and other required author information in the submitted manuscript in accordance with the official Seminare template. Before the manuscript is sent for external review, the Editorial Board prepares an anonymised version and removes information that could reveal the authors’ identities from the file made available to reviewers. Authors are therefore not required to anonymise the submitted manuscript themselves.

Reviewers are selected to avoid conflicts of interest. In particular, the Editorial Board ensures, as far as reasonably possible, that there is no:

1. direct institutional dependence between the authors and reviewers;
2. hierarchical or supervisory relationship;
3. close personal or family relationship;
4. recent and substantial research collaboration;
5. financial, professional, or other interest that could affect the reviewer’s impartiality.

Reviewers are required to inform the Editorial Board of any actual or potential conflict of interest and decline the review where an independent assessment cannot be ensured.

An author submitting a manuscript may request that a specific person not be invited to review the manuscript. Such a request must be appropriately justified. The Editorial Board considers the request and, where the concerns are considered reasonable, excludes the indicated person from the review process.

The identity of reviewers is treated as confidential and is not disclosed to the authors or unauthorised third parties.

Reviewers may use AI tools to support appropriate aspects of the peer-review process in accordance with the journal’s AI Policy, provided that such use does not compromise the confidentiality of the manuscript, independent scholarly judgement, research integrity, or the rights of the authors. Unpublished manuscripts, any part of a manuscript, review reports, or other confidential material must not be submitted to external AI systems unless adequate protection of confidentiality and data is ensured and such use is authorised within the journal’s editorial workflow. Reviewers remain fully responsible for their assessments and must independently consider and verify any AI-assisted output. Substantive use of AI in preparing a review must be disclosed confidentially to the Editorial Board in accordance with the journal’s AI Policy.

7. Originality Check

The Seminare Editorial Board assesses the originality of submitted manuscripts and may use iThenticate or other appropriate similarity-detection tools, depending on the discipline and the type of material. This corresponds to the originality policy currently published by the journal.

The originality check may include verification of:

1. similarities with previously published works;
2. unattributed or inadequately attributed text;
3. duplicate or redundant publication;
4. improper reuse of the authors’ own previously published material;
5. potentially fabricated, unreliable, or unverifiable references;
6. other indications of a possible breach of publication ethics.

A similarity report is not treated automatically as evidence of plagiarism. The Editorial Board evaluates the nature, extent, and context of the identified similarities.

Where serious concerns arise, the Editorial Board may:

1. request an explanation or correction from the authors;
2. suspend further processing of the manuscript;
3. reject the manuscript;
4. take other action consistent with the journal’s Publishing Ethics Policy and recognised standards of publication ethics.

8. Review Form

The standard review form used by Seminare is available for download in two formats:

1. Research article – Review Form – (click to download)
2. Review article – Review Form – (click to download)