About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Science education is a highly dynamic field of applied and basic research and of research-based development. Its ideas and problems arise at the intersection of theoretical and empirical research and of educational practice in science classrooms, informal learning and teacher education, of the important and manifold relations of modern societies with science and education, and of a scientific, evidence-based approach to science teaching and learning and science literacy.

In this framework, the open access journal Progress in Science Education (PriSE) aims at stimulating exchange between researchers, teachers, and other stakeholders in the field, trying to investigate their ideas and visions, and to suggest approaches for an effective and sustainable development of science education in and out of school.

CERN has always had a strong commitment to science education. As an open institution, making scientific results publically available is an integral part of CERN’s mandate. By collaborating with PriSE, CERN can help to strengthen open access to science education. In a sector where many scientists and users – teachers and school students – are not connected to universities and libraries and need access to this information, this collaboration will help to make science education more reachable for everyone.

Progress in Science Education and CERN as publisher propose a new dynamic platform, offering the possibility of peer reviewed, timely publication of high quality research papers in four languages (English, French, German and Italian). With its online open access format it will be accessible for free to a large European and overseas public, including teachers. PriSE is addressing in particular young researchers with the intention to publish their first scientific results. It welcomes quantitative and qualitative empirical research, as well as theoretical, philosophical, programmatic, sociological and historical work, coming from all areas of science education (life, physical, earth, environmental and integrated science), from the intersection with neighboring fields (mathematics, engineering, computer education), and intended for all age groups of learners. To emphasize the importance of the interplay between research and practice, in addition to reaearch articles, there is also a special format for papers in the "Research Based Reports of Pratice" category. In addition, PriSE offers reviews of published books in the field of science education, nature of science and technology.


Research Based Reports of Pratice

Research based report of practice aims to take a particular look at the practice of science and technology education. They proposes to the authors to publish, after peer-review, their observations and interpretations made in the context of research-based interventions in a classroom or extra-curricular context. Based on these observations, the authors identify and delimit further steps of practice or research in science and technology education. In particular, these reports may lead to the formulation of research questions and hypotheses, or to consideration of the feasibility of an intervention design.

In this way, the focus of research based reports of practice is (i) on the practical application phase of existing research, or (ii) on the development, trial and observation phase, which both are so important in the scientific process of construction and empirical validation of research put into practice.

Researched based report of practice must meet the following quality criteria:

  • a researched based approach, referring to the current state of knowledge and research
  • a precise and, if possible, illustrated description of the educational approach
  • a precise and, if possible, illustrated description of the school or extra-curricular context of the intervention
  • a clear structure
  • a clear and helpful/stimulating discussion (connection to the research background of the study; critical analysis of the intervention and its outcomes)
  • a precise statement about the relevance and the implication of the observations for future research and classroom practice


Book reviews

Aim: The aim of the book reviews is to offer a scientifically sound and critical look at new scientific studies in the field of science education, nature of science and technology. Critical reviews reflect the reviewer’s personal opinion and are intended to promote scientific discourse.

Structure of the Review:The format of the review is not specified. However, it should consist of approx. 5 pages. Any references to literature should follow APA format guidelines.


Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted will first go through the initial screening that contains the evaluation of suitability of the submitted manuscript according to following criteria:

  1. topic of the submission is in line with the aims and scope of the PriSE;
  2. the formatting guidelines have been appropriately followed;
  3. the submission exhibits novelty and progress of scientific results.

A special format are "Reseach Based Report of Practice", where practioners of all backgrounds (teachers, out-of school educators, etc.) are invited to present their developments (activities, lesson plans, etc.) if these are founded on previous research: this foundation as well as implications for future research have to be made explicit in the text.

If the submitted manuscript passes the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief will recruit reviewers to assess the merits of the manuscript. Upon receipt of the reviews, the Editor-in-Chief will provide a recommendation to the authors stating whether the submission is accepted as is, revised, or rejected. Note that PriSE makes use of a double-blind review process in which both the Reviewer/s and the Author/s are anonymous. Our policy is to have a definite editorial decision by the end of the second review round.

The decision of the Editor-in-Chief (Reject, Major Revision, Minor Revision, and Accept) is emailed to corresponding author. The e-mail message will contain any reviews submitted and also in case of revision is needed the information for the steps needed in preparing the re-submission.

Open Access Policy

PriSE is fully commited to Open Access in the sense of removing barriers to copy or reuse scientific work for all who might be interested in it.
It applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license under which  anyone may access, copy, distribute, or reuse these articles, as long as the author and original source are properly cited.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The principles outlined below are inspired by the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
For more details please refer to the general guidelines of COPE at https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Duties of Editors

  1. The Editors are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published;
  2. The Editors may discuss with other editors or reviewers in making decision;
  3. The Editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors;
  4. The Editors must 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;
  5. The Editors should ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process;
  6. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author;
  7. The Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.

Duties of the Editorial Board

  1. The Editorial Board must keep information pertaining to submitted manuscripts confidential.
  2. The Editorial Board must disclose any conflicts of interest.
  3. The Editorial Board must evaluate manuscripts only for their intellectual content.
  4. The Editorial Board is responsible for making publication decisions for submitted manuscripts.

Duties of the Reviewer

  1. Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information;
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments;
  3. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation;
  4. Reviewers should request to the Editors attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge;
  5. In case, any reviewer feels that it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then the same must be communicated to the editors, so that the same could be sent to any other reviewer;
  6. Reviewers should not review 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 papers.

Duties of the Author

  1. The Authors should submit papers only on work that has been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and that complies with all relevant legislation;
  2. The Authors should   present   their   results   clearly,   honestly,   and   without   fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation;
  3. The Authors should endeavor to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others;
  4. The Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere;
  5. The Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere;
  6. The Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited;
  7. The Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work;
  8. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Duplicitous or expressively inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable;
  9. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work;
  10. The Authors should ensure that the authorship accurately reflects individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting; and where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged;
  11. The Authors should disclose relevant funding sources and any existing or potential conflicts of interest. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed;
  12. 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 editors and the editor to retract or correct the paper
  13. Authors wishing to include figures, tables, or text passages that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright owner(s) for both the print and online format and to include evidence that such permission has been granted when submitting their papers. Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors


This publication is sponsored by