Policies

The School of Childhood and Social Care makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "content") contained in this publication. However, it, or any of its agents and licensors, makes no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability for any purpose of the Content and disclaims all such representations and warranties, whether express or implied to the maximum extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this publication are the views of the authors and are not the views of the School of Childhood and Social Care.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a more equitable global exchange of knowledge.

Works are released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY) licence, which provides unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Authors of articles published in Educational Psychology Research and Practice (EPRaP) remain the copyright holders and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce and share those articles according to the terms of the Creative Commons agreement outlined above.

If you have any queries about the choice of licence or wish to discuss other options, please contact us at EPRaP@uel.ac.uk.

Editorial Review System

EPRaP aims to be fair and inclusive in its editorial review system; it is anticipated that all relevant articles that meet the quality and criteria linked to the aims and scope of EPRaP will be published. Decisions made by the editorial board should be considered final.

EPRaP’s peer review process is double-blind: neither the author(s) nor reviewer(s) know the identity of the other. Any paper that is submitted is initially read by one of the editorial team members. If it seems to meet the aims and scope of EPRaP, a peer reviewer is identified. The reviewer is sent an anonymous version of the article and the reviewer guidance. Feedback from a reviewer is usually expected within eight weeks. Qualitative feedback is given, as well as a recommendation from the reviewer regarding the next steps. Feedback aims to add value to the submission, and this may include helping authors to identify a ‘writing buddy’, who can support them in developing their article for publication in EPRaP.

The recommendations following the review are:

Accepted for publication without amendment
Accepted subject to amendment
Author to revise and resubmit for further consideration
Author to seek publication elsewhere (suggested publication)
Not suitable for publication

Feedback is returned to the editorial team, who then review it before passing it to the author. The edited paper is resubmitted as appropriate. The editorial team will make the final decision about publication.