Independent agency for accreditation and ranking

Independent agency for accreditation and rating

Apply now

Review Procedure

1.  Articles submitted for publication must be double-blind peer-reviewed. Each manuscript is reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. Peer reviewers should be independent experts.

The term for preparing a review is set by agreement with the reviewer, but cannot exceed two weeks from the moment the article is received by the reviewer.

If there are negative reviews of the manuscript of the article from two different reviewers or one negative review of its revised version, the author is sent a reasoned refusal to publish the article.

In case of a positive review and recommendation of the manuscript for publication, the manuscript is included in the portfolio of texts accepted for publication, from which the next issue will be formed, the author will be notified of this. In the case of a negative review, the manuscript is either rejected or sent to the author for revision and changes. After revision, the article is again sent for scientific review to the same reviewers. In case of a positive review and recommendation of the article for publication, it falls into the portfolio of texts accepted for publication. In case of repeated negative review, the manuscript is finally rejected, the author is notified of this.

2. If the reviewer points out the need to make certain corrections to the text, the article is sent to the author with a proposal to take into account the comments when preparing an updated version of the article or to refute them with arguments. When sending a revised article to the Journal, the author must send a file containing answers to all the comments of the reviewer and explaining all the changes made in the article.

3. The corrected version is re-provided to the reviewer for making a decision and preparing a reasoned opinion on the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is the date of receipt by the editors of the positive opinion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) on the feasibility and possibility of publishing the article.

4. The order of publication of articles is determined by the registration date of their receipt by the editorial office. Papers devoted to particularly topical problems of science, as well as containing fundamentally new information, by the decision of the editorial board, may be published out of turn.

5. Articles of the first heads of state bodies, institutions, organisations and their deputies, first heads of higher educational institutions and their deputies, representatives of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan are not subject to review.

6. Articles of the members of the Editorial Board of the Journal (except for the above categories) are reviewed in the usual manner.

Ethics of scientific publications

In order to ensure a high status of trust on the part of readers and their confidence in the reliability of the scientific information of published scientific articles, the editorial board of the journal “Education. Quality Assurance”  is guided in its activities by international ethical standards of scientific publications, including the rules of decency, confidentiality, supervision of publications, consideration of possible conflicts of interest, etc. In its activities, the Editorial Board follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics.


1.  The website of the Journal publishes information for authors, which indicates the requirements for articles and conditions of publication in the Journal "Education. Quality Assurance". The requirements are the same for all authors.

2. The editors reserve the right to reject the material prior to an independent review if it is considered low quality or inappropriate to the subject matter of the Journal, or if the authors do not comply with the Ethics of the Journal.

3. If undeniable errors are found in the work, the author is given the opportunity to make the appropriate amendments as soon as possible.

4. Every article approved through the preliminary examination process that goes through a double-blind peer-review process. The recommendations of the reviewers are the basis for making the final decision on the publication of the article.

5. The final decision on the possibility (or impossibility) of publishing materials in the Journal is made by the Editorial Board, guided by the Journal's Policy and Ethics Standards, and current copyright laws.

6. Members of the Editorial Board have the opportunity to publish in their own Journal, but according to the Journal's policy regarding the processing of articles written by members of the editorial board, they cannot take advantage of their position. The Journal defines the procedure for considering submissions from members of the Editorial Board, ensuring that there is no chance of influencing the review process.

7. The editors in every possible way prevent text plagiarism, plagiarism of ideas and plagiarism of data. Articles with signs of plagiarism and self-plagiarism, the materials of which were previously published in the form of articles, monographs, dissertations, abstracts of dissertations, patents, scientific reports, etc. are not published.

8.  The editors evaluate the manuscripts solely by their content, taking into account the current legislation, regardless of information about personal data, political and religious views of the authors.

9.  Until the publication of the article, the editorial staff does not inform anyone about the status of the article in the Journal, except for its authors.

10. All editorial staff do not disclose work assignments to anyone other than the respective authors, reviewers, or other editorial consultants. Information or ideas received during editing shall be confidential.

11. In case of a conflict of interests between the author and the reviewer, the manuscript is transferred for consideration to another reviewer. If a competition of interests was identified after the publication of the article, the editorial board undertakes to ensure the publication of the amendments.

12. When submitting an ethical complaint regarding a submitted manuscript or published article, the editors of the Journal undertake to take reasonable retaliatory measures. Each report of the fact of unethical behavior is considered, regardless of the date of publication. If the facts of violation of the ethics of publications are confirmed, the corresponding corrections, denials or apologies are posted on the pages of the Journal or on the website.



The authors (or a group of authors), when submitting an article to the Journal, realise that they are initially responsible for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research, which implies compliance with the following principles:

1. The authors of the article must provide reliable results of the research carried out. False or falsified allegations are inadmissible.

2. Authors must ensure that the research results presented in the submitted manuscript are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be made with the obligatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unofficial quotations, paraphrasing or appropriation of rights to the results of other people's research, is unethical and unacceptable. The presence of borrowing without reference will be considered by the editorial board as plagiarism.

3. Authors should provide only true facts and information in the manuscript; provide sufficient information for verification and repetition of experiments by other researchers; not use information obtained privately without open written permission; prevent fabrication and falsification of data.

Avoid duplication of publications (in the cover letter, the author must indicate that the work is being published for the first time). If individual elements of the manuscript were previously published, the author is obliged to refer to the earlier work and indicate the differences between the new work and the previous one.

4. Authors should not submit to the Journal a manuscript that was sent to another Journal and is under consideration, as well as an article already published in another Journal.

5. It is necessary to recognise the contribution of all persons who in one way or another influenced the course of the research; in particular, the article should contain references to works that were of importance in the conduct of the research.

6. Authors must comply with ethical standards when criticising or commenting on third party research. All persons who have made a significant contribution to the research should be indicated as co-authors of the article. Among the co-authors it is inadmissible to indicate persons who did not participate in the study.

7. Authors should respect the work of the editorial board and reviewers and eliminate the indicated deficiencies or explain them reasonably.

8. Authors must submit and format an article in accordance with the rules and requirements adopted in the Journal.

9. If the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, he must immediately notify the editorial office of the Journal.

10. Self-citation is limited to a maximum of 5 links per article.

11. Authors must provide the editorial board or publisher with proof of the correctness of the original article or correct material errors if the editorial board or publisher becomes aware of them from third parties.



1.  The reviewer carries out scientific expertise of copyright materials, as a result of which his actions must be impartial, consisting in the implementation of ethical principles. The reviewer should not take part in the review and assessment of manuscripts in which he is personally interested.

2. A reviewer who, in his/her opinion, is not qualified to evaluate the manuscript, or who cannot be objective, for example, in the case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, or who knows that the duration of the review would be unduly long, must notify the editors of this and refuse the process of reviewing this manuscript.

3. The manuscript received for review should be considered as a confidential document that cannot be transferred for review or discussion to third parties who do not have the authority to do so from the editorial board.

4. The reviewer is not entitled to sign a review written by another person.

5. The reviewer is obliged to know that the manuscripts sent to him are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to information that is not subject to disclosure. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials presented in the article are unreliable or falsified.

6. The reviewer should draw the attention of the editorial board of the Journal to the significant or partial similarity of the evaluated manuscript to any other work, as well as the fact that there are no references to provisions, conclusions or arguments previously published in other works of this or other authors.

7. The reviewer should mark relevant published works that are not cited in the article they are reviewing.

8.  The reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the stated research results and clearly substantiated recommendations. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific level of the manuscript.

9.  Critical statements about the identity of the authors, their scientific level, scientific worldview, the level of special training, etc. are inadmissible.

10. The reviewer has no right to use in his own interests the knowledge about the content of the work before its publication.

11. The reviewer has no right to copy articles. Reviewers can use data obtained during the analysis of an unpublished article only with the permission of the authors.