Reviwer Guidelines

The Journal of Educational Research and Practice (JERP) recognises peer review as an essential part of scholarly publishing. Reviewers contribute to the quality, integrity, and clarity of published research by providing independent and constructive assessments of the submitted manuscripts.

JERP operates a double-anonymous peer-review process in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process. These guidelines should be read in conjunction with the journal's Publication Ethics and Generative AI Policy.

1. Before Accepting a Review

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should consider whether they:

  • have sufficient expertise to evaluate this manuscript.
  • can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
  • have any competing interests that could affect, or reasonably be perceived as affecting, their impartiality; and
  • are able to comply with the journal's confidentiality and peer-review policies.

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they are able to provide a competent and independent assessment of the manuscript. If a reviewer cannot complete the review within the agreed timeframe, the editor should be promptly informed. An extension may be requested if necessary.

2. Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose any competing interests that could affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment of the manuscript. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • personal;
  • professional;
  • financial;
  • institutional;
  • intellectual; or
  • related to recent collaborations or academic relationships.

Reviewers should normally decline an invitation if:

  • are currently employed at the same institution as the author;
  • have recently been close collaborators, mentors, mentees, or joint grant holders with an author;
  • have a direct personal or professional relationship with any of the authors;
  • have a financial interest related to the research; or
  • are involved in directly competing work that could reasonably affect their judgement.

If a potential competing interest is uncertain, the reviewer should disclose it to the editor and seek guidance before proceeding with the review. Competing interests should be communicated confidentially to the editor rather than being disclosed to the authors through the review report.

In a double-anonymous review, the reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors. If a reviewer believes that they recognise an author and this creates a possible competing interest, they should inform the editor.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and associated materials received for review must be treated confidentially.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript or review materials with unauthorised individuals.
  • discuss the manuscript with others without the permission of the editor;
  • use unpublished information, ideas, data, or methods for personal or professional advantage;
  • use information obtained through peer review to disadvantage the authors or others; or
  • discussed publicly the manuscript before publication.

Reviewers should not contact the authors directly regarding a manuscript. After completing the review, reviewers should securely delete or destroy manuscript files and other confidential materials unless the journal requires otherwise. Confidentiality continues after the review is completed.

4. Co-reviewing and Assistance from Others

Reviewers must not involve another person, including a colleague, student, trainee, or research assistant, in reviewing a manuscript without prior permission from the Editor. Where permission for co-reviewing is granted, all individuals involved must comply with the same confidentiality and ethical requirements as those of the invited reviewers.

Individuals who made substantive contributions to the review should be disclosed to the editor so that their contributions can be appropriately recorded. The invited reviewers remain responsible for the reviews submitted to the journal.

5. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, quality, confidentiality, and integrity of their reviews. Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, its substantial contents, supplementary files, unpublished data, or other confidential materials to a generative AI system or external AI service, where confidentiality, intellectual property, or data protection cannot be assured.

6. Conducting the Review

Reviews should be:

  • independent;
  • objective;
  • constructive;
  • evidence-based;
  • respectful; and
  • focused on scholarly content of the manuscript.

Reviewers should evaluate the work rather than the presumed characteristics, identity, institution, nationality, geographical location, beliefs or background of the authors. Personal criticism, hostile language, discriminatory comments, defamatory statements, and unsupported allegations are inappropriate forms of communication.

Reviewers should distinguish between issues that are essential for the validity or clarity of the manuscript and optional suggestions. Reviewers are not expected to assess aspects of a manuscript that fall outside their area of expertise. Where specialist assessment is needed, the reviewer should indicate this to the Editor.

7. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should consider the following aspects, where relevant to the manuscript type.

Relevance to JERP

Please consider whether the manuscript:

  • aligns with the aims and scope of the JERP.
  • addresses an educationally relevant issue; and
  • contributes to educational knowledge, policies, and practices.

Originality and Contribution

Consider whether:

  • The research problem or scholarly purpose is clearly identified.
  • The manuscript provides a meaningful contribution to the existing knowledge.
  • the contribution is appropriately supported by the study; and
  • claims of novelty or significance are proportional to the evidence.

Title and Abstract

Consider whether:

  • The title accurately represents the manuscript.
  • the abstract adequately summarises the purpose, approach, principal findings, and implications; and
  • The keywords appropriately represent the main topics of this manuscript.

Introduction and Literature

Consider whether:

  • The research problem or rationale is clearly explained.
  • The relevant literature is appropriately engaged.
  • the research gap or scholarly rationale is adequately established; and
  • The objectives and research questions are clearly stated.

Reviewers should not require authors to cite specific publications unless those sources are genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

Methodology

For empirical research, consider the following:

  • The research design is appropriate for the research questions or objectives.
  • participants, context, data sources, instruments, and procedures were sufficiently described;
  • Data collection and analytical procedures are appropriate and transparent.
  • validity, reliability, trustworthiness, or other relevant indicators of research quality are adequately addressed; and
  • The conclusions are supported by the methods and evidence.

For review articles, we considered whether the search, selection, appraisal, and synthesis procedures were sufficiently transparent and appropriate.

For conceptual or theoretical papers, consider whether the conceptual framework, analytical approach, argumentation, and use of the literature are coherent and adequately developed.

Results or Findings

Consider whether:

  • The findings are presented clearly and systematically.
  • results correspond to the research questions, objectives, or analytical framework.
  • tables and figures are appropriate and understandable; and
  • The manuscript appropriately distinguishes between evidence and interpretation.

Discussion

Consider whether:

  • The findings are interpreted in relation to relevant scholarship.
  • Alternative interpretations are considered where appropriate.
  • claims are supported by the findings.
  • limitations are appropriately recognised; and
  • The implications for educational knowledge, policy, or practice are reasonable.

Conclusion

We considered the following conclusions:

  • reflects the evidence presented.
  • addresses the purpose of this study.
  • avoids unsupported generalisation; and
  • clearly communicates the main contributions of this manuscript.

Research Ethics

Where relevant, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript adequately addresses the following:

  • Research ethics approval
  • Informed consent and assent.
  • Participant privacy and confidentiality.
  • involvement of children, young people, vulnerable populations, or sensitive groups
  • management of sensitive or identifiable data; and
  • Other ethical issues relevant to the research context.

Ethical considerations in educational research should be assessed in relation to the study’s nature and context.

Reporting and Transparency

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript provides sufficient information for readers to understand how the research was conducted and how the conclusions were drawn. Where relevant, reviewers may comment on data availability, research materials, reporting standards or other transparency issues.

8. Preparing the Review Report

A useful review report should identify both strengths and areas that require improvement. Reviewers are encouraged to structure their comments as follows:

Overall Assessment

Provide a concise assessment of the following:

  • The purpose and relevance of the manuscript are as follows:
  • its principal strengths
  • its main limitations; and
  • The importance of the revisions required.

Major Comments

Major comments should address issues that materially affect the quality, validity, interpretation, or contributions of the manuscript. These may include concerns regarding the following:

  • research design;
  • methodology;
  • analysis;
  • theoretical or conceptual reasoning
  • interpretation of the findings;
  • ethical issues; or
  • unsupported conclusion.

Comments should clearly explain the problem and, where possible, indicate how it may be addressed in the future.

Minor Comments

Minor comments may address issues such as the following:

  • clarity of presentation.
  • organisation;
  • terminology;
  • minor inconsistencies;
  • tables or figures; and
  • specific points that require clarification.

Reviewers are not expected to provide extensive language editing or proofreading services. Where language substantially affects comprehension, reviewers should identify the problem rather than rewriting the manuscript.

9. Recommendations to the Editor

Reviewers may be asked to provide editorial recommendations through the journal's submission system. The recommendation should be consistent with the comments provided in the review report. Reviewers should understand that their recommendations are advisory. The editor makes the final editorial decision based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, journal policies, and other relevant considerations. Reviewers should not state or imply to the authors that a manuscript will be accepted or rejected. Confidential comments intended only for the editor should be entered separately from those intended for the authors.

10. Citation Practices

Reviewers may recommend references that are directly relevant and would materially improve the manuscript. Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations.

  • to their publications;
  • to publications from their institutions;
  • to a particular journal; or
  • to particular authors

to increase citation counts or provide personal, institutional, or journal advantage. Citation recommendations should be based solely on scholarly relevance to the user.

11. Suspected Misconduct

Reviewers should alert the editor confidentially if they identify any of the following:

  • plagiarism or inappropriate textual reuse.
  • fabrication or falsification of data,
  • inappropriate manipulation of figures or images
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • unethical research practices;
  • inappropriate authorship;
  • fabricated references;
  • citation manipulation;
  • peer-review manipulation; or
  • other research or publication misconducts.

Reviewers should provide sufficient information to explain their concerns but should not make unsupported accusations. Reviewers must not contact the authors directly about suspected misconduct and should not conduct their own investigations. Responsibility for assessing and managing such concerns rests with the editor and, where necessary, with the appropriate institution or authority.

12. Revision and Re-review

Reviewers may be invited to assess the revised manuscript. When reviewing a revision, the reviewers should consider the following:

  • The authors' responses to previous comments.
  • Whether major concerns have been adequately addressed.
  • whether revisions have introduced new problems; and
  • Whether the remaining issues materially affect the manuscript.

Reviewers should avoid introducing substantial new requirements during subsequent rounds unless the revision reveals an issue that could not have been reasonably identified previously.

13. Reviewer Conduct After Review

Reviewers must continue to respect the confidentiality of the manuscript after submitting their reviews. Reviewers must not use information obtained through the review process before it becomes publicly available through legitimate publications.

Reviewer identities must remain confidential in accordance with the JERP double-anonymous peer-review policy. Reviewers should contact the editor if they later identify a significant error in their review or become aware of information that may affect the editorial assessment of the manuscript.