Reviewer Guidelines & Evaluation Criteria

This guide outlines the evaluation criteria for the Journal of Educational Innovations and Practices (JEIP). Reviewers assess the Blinded Manuscript, which must adhere to the double-blind review policy. Please evaluate the manuscript based on the specific sections and quality standards detailed below.

For journal-wide rules on peer review, ethics, plagiarism, and corrections, please consult Editorial Policies. For privacy and data handling, see Privacy Statement.

A. Ethical Responsibilities

By accepting this invitation, you agree to adhere to COPE guidelines: publicationethics.org

  • Confidentiality: Do not share the manuscript or use its data.
  • Conflict of Interest: If you suspect you know the author(s), notify the Editor.
  • Timeliness: Please complete your review within 1 week (7 days).

Reviewer Citation Ethics (COPE-Aligned):
Reviewers must not request citations to their own work, or to works closely associated with them, unless there is a clear and scientifically justified reason demonstrating direct relevance to the manuscript’s scope, methodology, or theoretical framework. Unjustified or excessive self-citation requests are considered unethical under COPE principles (COPE).

B. AI Usage Policy

Strict Prohibition: Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading any part of the manuscript into Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude) to generate reports. This is a violation of confidentiality.

C. Blind Review Check

Ensure the manuscript is fully anonymized:

  • No author names or affiliations.
  • No “Declarations” section (Funding, Acknowledgments, etc.) – these are in the Title Page only.
  • Ethics statements must be generic (e.g., “Ethical approval was obtained...”) without naming the institution.

Note: During peer review, ethics approval statements must remain anonymized. Full institutional details are provided only after acceptance.

Evaluation Criteria (Section by Section)

Abstract & Keywords

✅ Reviewer Criteria

  • Structure: Does it follow the required format: Purpose, Method, Findings, Conclusion?
  • Content: Does it clearly state the innovative aspect and key practical implication?
  • Keywords: Are there 4–6 specific keywords (e.g., “Augmented Reality” instead of “Technology”)?

1. Introduction

✅ Reviewer Criteria

  • The Gap: Does the author clearly identify what is missing in the current literature?
  • Originality: Is the contribution to “educational innovation” explicitly stated?
  • Research Questions: Are the questions/hypotheses clear, focused, and answerable?

2. Literature Review / Theoretical Framework

✅ Reviewer Criteria

  • Synthesis: Does it synthesize critically rather than only listing studies?
  • Framework: Is there a clear theoretical foundation (e.g., TPACK, Cognitive Load Theory)?

3. Methodology

Please check the following subsections for rigor and reproducibility:

✅ Reviewer Criteria

  • 3.1 Research Design: Is the design appropriate and justified?
  • 3.2 Participants: Is the sample described sufficiently without revealing identity?
  • 3.3 Data Collection: Are validity and reliability evidences provided?
  • 3.4 Data Analysis: Are procedures transparent (tests/coding steps/software if relevant)?
  • 3.5 Ethical Considerations: Is there a statement on consent and anonymity (without identifiable committee/institution names in the blinded file)?

4. Findings

✅ Reviewer Criteria

  • Objectivity: Are findings presented without interpretation?
  • Visuals: Do tables and figures follow APA 7 standards?
  • Alignment: Do results answer the research questions?

5. Conclusions

✅ Reviewer Criteria

  • Does it summarize the main contribution concisely without introducing new data?
  • Does it highlight the innovative aspect?

6. Discussion

✅ Reviewer Criteria

  • Interpretation: Does the author explain why results occurred?
  • Literature Integration: Are findings compared/contrasted with previous studies?
  • Theory Link: Are results discussed in light of the theoretical framework?

7. Practical Implications

✅ Reviewer Criteria

  • Actionable: Are suggestions concrete for practitioners/policymakers?
  • Specific: Do suggestions link directly to the study’s findings (not generic advice)?

8. Limitations and Future Directions

✅ Reviewer Criteria

  • Transparency: Are limitations stated honestly?
  • Future Work: Do future suggestions logically follow from these limitations?

References

✅ Reviewer Criteria

  • Format: APA 7th Edition compliance.
  • Completeness: Every in-text citation appears in the reference list and vice versa.
  • Accuracy: DOIs included where available (as https://doi.org/...).

APA 7 Resources: APA Style (Official)  |  Reference Examples

Examples of APA 7 Format:

Journal Article:
Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of the article. Title of the Journal, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/xxxx

Book:
Author, A. A. (Year). Title of the book (2nd ed.). Publisher.

Chapter in an Edited Book:
Author, A. A. (Year). Title of the chapter. In E. E. Editor (Ed.), Title of the book (pp. xx–xx). Publisher.

Conference Proceeding:
Author, A. A. (Year). Title of paper. In E. Editor (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference Name (pp. xx–xx). Publisher. https://doi.org/xxxx

Thesis/Dissertation:
Author, A. A. (Year). Title of the dissertation [Doctoral dissertation, University Name]. Repository Name.

Writing the Review Report

Handling Ethical Concerns During Review:
If a reviewer identifies potential ethical concerns (e.g., citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or breaches of confidentiality), the issue should be reported to the Editor. JEIP follows COPE Core Practices in addressing such cases, which may include clarification requests, disregarding unethical recommendations, or discontinuing reviewer assignments. Related COPE resources: publicationethics.org
Mandatory Requirement: Provide a narrative justification of at least 100 words in the “Comments to Author” section. Simple checklist responses (e.g., “Good”, “Accept”) are not accepted.

Please structure your comments as follows:

  1. Summary: Brief overview of the study’s contribution.
  2. Major Issues: Critical flaws in methodology, theory, or structure (refer to sections above).
  3. Minor Issues: Clarity, APA formatting, typos.

Final Recommendation Options:

  • Accept: No changes needed (rare).
  • Minor Revisions: Small corrections/clarifications.
  • Major Revisions: Significant reworking required (e.g., re-analysis, rewriting).
  • Decline: Serious flaws or out of scope.

Questions? Please use the Contact page.

JEIP Editorial Office | Contact