Papers submitted to Nordic Journal of Pedagogy and Critique are subject to rigorous peer review so as to ensure that the research published is 'good science'. Before the beginning of the refereeing process, manuscripts go through screening by Editors. At this stage manuscripts may be rejected directly by the Editors if judged to be out of scope for the Journal, or if scientifically or linguistically sub-standard.

Manuscripts that have successfully gone through the screening stage are then sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place via e-mail. Although the peer review process is accelerated by the use of electronic communication, traditional, high-quality peer-review standards are applied to all manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Each manuscript is sent to at least two independent referees. Nordic Journal of Pedagogy and Critique has a 'double blind' review process: Authors are not told who reviewed their paper, and reviewers are not told who wrote the paper.

Peer reviewers are asked to give their opinion on a number of issues pertinent to the scientific and formal aspects of a paper, and to judge the papers on grounds of originality, quality of empirical work and argument, quality of research methodology or/and argumentation (for non-empirical papers) and quality of language of writing. In addition, for all submitted manuscripts, non-discriminatory language is mandatory. Sexist or racist terms should not be used, and their presence will result in immediate rejection by the Editors. All relevant information will be forwarded to the author(s). 

Peer reviewers will have the following possible options, for each article:
1. Accept manuscript (i.e. no need for any revision)
2. Accept after minor revision (i.e. accepted if the author makes the requested small revisions)
3. Accept after major revision (i.e.in such cases the paper will be sent out for another peer review round)
4. Reject manuscript (i.e. if the manuscript is substandard) 

The final decision on accepting the paper and the recommendation to the author(s) rests with the individual Editor who has been responsible for the evaluation of the paper.

When asking for revisions, reviewers have two possible goals: To ask authors to tighten their arguments based on existing data or to identify areas where more data are needed. Even formal revision may be required if the language or style is sub-standard. To facilitate rapid publication, authors are given a maximum of 3 months for revision. After 3 months, revised manuscripts will be considered new submissions.

Please be aware that all peer review reports and related correspondence will be archived by the Publisher, via the Publishing platform. This documentation may be made available to a third party in the event of an audit.