About the Journal

Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Nordic Journal of Educational History (NJEdH) is an interdisciplinary international journal dedicated to scholarly excellence in the field of educational history.

The journal takes special responsibility for the communication and dissemination of educational history research of particular relevance to the Nordic region (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and political and geographic entities including the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Sápmi and Åland), but welcomes contributions exploring the history of education in all parts of the world.

The publishing language is English and the Scandinavian languages.

The journal applies a double blind peer review procedure and is accessible to all interested readers (NO FEES are charged for publication or subscription).

The NJEdH publishes articles as soon as they have been through the peer review and copy editing process, adding cumulatively to the content of an open issue each year. Special issues are normally published as the second issue of any given year.

Section Policies


☐ Open Submissions ☑ Indexed ☐ Peer Reviewed


Introductions to special issues are not peer reviewed.

☐ Open Submissions ☑ Indexed ☐ Peer Reviewed


All articles must be based on original research, and not published elsewhere. This includes articles published in another language. The word limit for an article is 11,000 words. This covers all text in the article, including footnotes and the concluding reference list. Please, make sure your manuscript is in line with the journal's scope and aim. Both English and Nordic/Scandinavian languages are accepted. For further information, see author guidelines.

☑ Open Submissions ☑ Indexed ☑ Peer Reviewed

Concluding Remarks

Concluding remarks in special issues are not peer-reviewed

☐ Open Submissions ☑ Indexed ☐ Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

Reviews of monographs should not exceed 1,000 words and reviews of edited volumes should not exceed 1,500 words. Reviews of dissertations should not exceed 3,500 words. The review section is non-peer reviewed, but submissions will be subject to editorial review. Reviews are accepted in English and Scandinavian languages, but English is preferred.

☑ Open Submissions ☑ Indexed ☐ Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The NJEdH strives to maintain high academic quality. Two reviewers will subject each submitted manuscript that the editorial team finds thematically motivated and scientifically relevant to blind appraisal, in accordance with the journal's guidelines for reviewers. The reviewers are selected based on their competence in the specific field with which the manuscript deals, or based on their solid general competence within the wider field of educational history.

When the editor of an issue also participates as an author in the same issue, another member of the editorial team mediates the contacts between author and the reviewers in order to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.

Publication Frequency

The NJEdH publishes two issues per year.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public facilitates a greater global exchange of knowledge. The works are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The ethics statements for this journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Further information on Publication Ethics can be found on the COPE website: https://publicationethics.org/

Duties of the Senior Editor and Editors

Fair assessment

Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.


The Senior Editor, the journal editors and any editorial staff do not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor's own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).

Publication decisions

The handling Editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and constrained by legal requirements regarding for example copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor may confer with the Senior Editor, other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s Senior Editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Duties of Peer Reviewers

Peer-review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field of publication.

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the Senior Editor and the journal editors in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.


Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor or Senior Editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Senior Editor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is not acceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.