Upon submission, each manuscript is initially examined by the editorial team. The manuscript is evaluated based on its relevance to the scope and focus of MJME, compliance with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript template, and general academic and technical requirements.

The manuscript is also assessed by the Managing Editor or assigned editor to determine whether it meets the basic criteria required for further consideration and peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected at the initial screening stage.

All submitted manuscripts are subject to plagiarism and similarity screening as part of the editorial process. The journal may use appropriate plagiarism detection software to identify plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, and inappropriate text similarity.

Manuscripts with a similarity level of more than 25% may be rejected or returned to the authors for clarification and revision, depending on the nature and source of the similarity.

The final decision concerning plagiarism and similarity issues is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board based on the similarity report and the context of the identified similarities.

MJME uses a double-blind peer review system. Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers throughout the review process.

In general, each manuscript is reviewed by one to two qualified reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, previous reviewing experience, and relevance to the subject area of the submitted manuscript.

The journal uses a review form to ensure that important aspects of each manuscript are evaluated consistently. Reviewers assess the originality, clarity of presentation, academic quality, methodological soundness, and contribution of the manuscript to mathematics education and related fields.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Originality and novelty of the research or ideas presented.
• Relevance of the manuscript to the scope and focus of the journal.
• Clarity of presentation and organization of the manuscript.
• Methodological soundness and appropriateness of the research methods.
• Accuracy and adequacy of data analysis and interpretation of research findings.
• Contribution to the field of mathematics education and related disciplines.
• Quality and relevance of references used to support the research.
• Validity of conclusions and consistency between research objectives, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments and recommendations to assist the editor in making an informed editorial decision and to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

The Editorial Board makes the final editorial decision based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations, together with the editor's assessment of the manuscript.

MJME applies four types of editorial decisions:

A manuscript may be rejected for one or more of the following reasons:

1. The manuscript is outside the scope and focus of the journal.
2. The manuscript does not follow the journal's author guidelines or scientific writing requirements.
3. The manuscript contains fundamental methodological errors that substantially affect the validity of the research findings.
4. The authors fail to adequately address or respond to reviewers' and editors' recommendations without a reasonable and logical justification.
5. The manuscript contains plagiarism or inappropriate text similarity exceeding 25%.

The final decision to reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board based on the overall quality of the manuscript, reviewers' recommendations, and the journal's publication standards.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions. Peer review assists editors in making informed editorial decisions. Through constructive comments and communication with the editorial team, reviewers may also help authors improve the quality and clarity of their manuscripts.

Timeliness. Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that a timely review cannot be completed should promptly notify the editor and decline the review invitation.

Confidentiality. All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Manuscripts must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Objectivity. Reviews must be conducted objectively and professionally. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly and provide supporting arguments and constructive recommendations.

Conflict of Interest. Reviewers should inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity of their evaluation and should decline the review when necessary.

Use of Unpublished Material. Reviewers must not use unpublished information, ideas, data, or arguments contained in a submitted manuscript for their own research or personal benefit without the explicit permission of the authors.

Authors whose manuscripts receive a Minor Revision or Major Revision decision are required to revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers' and editors' comments.

Authors should carefully address each comment and submit the revised manuscript within the specified period. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the revised manuscript remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board.