Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Qualitative Research in Education is an online journal four-monthly (February 28th, June 28th and October 28th) published by Hipatia which shows the results of qualitative researches aimed to promote significantly the understanding and improvement of the educational processes. Qualitative Research in Education gathers the outcomes from the educational researches carried out in different fields, disciplines and qualitative methodological approaches. These investigations have as a final purpose to improve the educational processes or contexts. Consequently, the journal will publish disciplinary and multi-disciplinary pieces of work linked to education and more precisely to Pedagogy, Sociology, Anthropology, History, Philosophy, Linguistics, Geography, Mathematics, Physical Education, Music or Political Science.

This scientific journal was created to meet the need for recording the increasing scientific knowledge generated from qualitative researches. Qualitative Research in Education is one of the first scientific journals on this theme. It intends to be an international space for debate and educational reflection on participative implementations on research which involves the reality that is being investigated, the understanding of educational phenomena as well as the evidence that can encourage not only equity and improvement of outcomes in education but also a social change.

Qualitative Research in Education aims to be indexed as soon as possible within the national and international Social Science databases such as SCOPUS or Social Science Citation Index.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


The former journal includes articles about ended or in progress scientific inquiries.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Book reviews are of those most recent publications in the educational field, from different disciplines and of international interest.

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

List of Reviewers

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Full Issue

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous double-blind peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by two anonymous referees.

All of a journal’s content is subjected to peer-review, which is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field of publication.

When a manuscript is submitted, the editors screen the manuscripts to make sure that all the files have no identifying information on the authors and that the article has not been published elsewhere. Then, in a time period of 15 days maximum from the date of reception of the article, the journal editor will assign it to two external evaluators that will carry out a blind review of the article (double blind peer review). Over the review period of the article, both the names of the authors as well as the evaluators will be anonymous.

Peer reviewers are identified by editors of the journal, who are experienced researchers in their fields. The most suitable reviewers are selected according to the submission received and the reviewer's expertise and no conflict of interest; also a network of scholars can collaborate as reviewers in our journal.

The assessment form asks the peers to: a) indicate the quality and concordance of the different parts of the content with the journal on a scale of 1 to 4, b) give their opinion about the manuscript, including suggestions, remarks and point out relevant published work which is not yet cited, and, c) give a recommendation to publish the paper or not, including the possibility to recommend the paper for publication, on the condition that certain corrections or major changes are carried out first. In addition, in the review form, the referees are asked if they wish to make further confidential comments to the editors, to help make a decision to editors.

The Editors are in charge of exploring the reviewer's reports and exchange opinions with some members of the editorial board in order to make a proper decision whether an article could be publishable or not. The decision is reached through the reviewers' reports. All judgments and findings in the peer-review process will be objective.

Editors check all the reviews done and contrast the reviewers' notes with the content of the article before sending decisions and reviewers comment to authors. If reviewers do not carry out their duty correctly, editors will delete them from the list and send the article to another reviewer or to a member of the editorial board to carry out a fast-track review of the manuscript.

In cases where Editors have doubts after the process of review, they double-check the evaluation with some members of the Editorial board, according to their field of specialization, in order to reach an agreement and a decision on the manuscript.

The authors should consider, when necessary, the observations of the reviewers and editors of the journals and send a new text for publication with the changes suggested.

The result of the evaluation will be send to the authors in a maximum period of 3 months from the date of reception.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides free immediate access to its content under the principle of which to make the research freely available to the public supports a greater interchange of global knowledge.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Non­Commercial and Non­Derivative License



This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration.


Publication Ethics

Hipatia Press Scientific Journals pursue the ethical standards present in the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the International Standards for editors and authors published by the Committee on Publication Ethics

QRE is committed to meeting high standards of ethical conduct at all stages of the publication process. In our ethical standards and procedures, we set out general expectations for authors, editors, reviewers, publishers and society partners. QRE guarantees at all times the confidentiality of the evaluation process: the anonymity of the reviewers and the authors, the content evaluated, the rationale report issued by the reviewers and any other communication issued by the editorial and advisory boards.

Also the confidentiality will be maintained before any clarifications or complaints that an author wishes to send to the committees of the journal or to the evaluators of the article.

QRE declares its commitment for the respect and integrity of the works already published. For this reason, plagiarism is strictly prohibited in QRE and texts that are identified as plagiarism or its content are fraudulent will be removed from the journal if they have already been published or will not be published. Hipatia Press and QRE editors will act, in these cases, as quickly as possible. By accepting the terms and agreements expressed by QRE, authors must ensure that the article or review and the materials associated with them are original or do not infringe copyright. The authors also have to justify that, in case of a shared authorship, there was a full consensus of all the authors affected and that the article or book review has not been previously presented or published in other journals.

In the event that QRE editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct, these allegations would be treated accordingly. QRE editors will be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies whenever needed. 



• The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation.

• Researchers should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.

• Researchers should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.

• Researchers should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere.

• Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.

• The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.

• Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed.

For a detailed account of ethics international standards for authors developed by COPE during the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity in Singapore in 2010, please access the following document: https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf


Peer reviews

• Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.

•  Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.

•  Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.

•  Declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.

•  Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.

•  Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments.

•  Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner.

•  Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.

•  Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

For a detailed account of the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers developed by COPE, please access the following document: http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf



• Editors are accountable and take responsibility for everything they publish.

• Editors will make fair and unbiased decisions independent from commercial consideration and will ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process.

• Editors will adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting.

• Editors will guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.

• Editors will pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.

• Editors will critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals.

• Peer reviewers and authors are told what of is expected of them.

• Editors have appropriate policies in place for handling editorial conflicts of interest.

For a detailed account of the publication ethics and malpractice statement for editors developed by COPE, please access the following document:  https://publicationethics.org/files/editable-bean/COPE_Core_Practices_0.pdf