Information For Librarians

Peer review is the cornerstone of academic excellence. Whether you are an experienced referee or reviewing for the first time, your contribution is vital to the advancement of the field and the integrity of Educational Research & Implementation (EduRE).

Reviewing is not only a service to the community but also a professional development opportunity: it strengthens critical thinking, keeps you up to date with emerging research, and can improve your own scholarly writing.

[ ::: Download for Reviewer Guide ::: ]

1. How to Become a Reviewer

We welcome qualified experts to join our reviewer pool.

For New Users

  1. Click Register on the homepage.

  2. While completing your profile, check: “Yes, I would like to be contacted with requests to review submissions to this journal.”

  3. Enter your expertise in Reviewing Interests using clear keywords (e.g., STEM Education, Educational Psychology, Assessment, Qualitative Methods, Mixed Methods, Technology-Enhanced Learning).

  4. We encourage you to add your ORCID iD to support accurate attribution.

For Registered Users

  1. Log in and go to [Edit Profile].

  2. Under Roles, ensure Reviewer is selected.

  3. Update Reviewing Interests regularly so you receive manuscripts aligned with your expertise.

2. Pre-Review Checklist: Ethical & Logistical Considerations

Before accepting an invitation, please consider the following (aligned with COPE guidance):

Suitability & Expertise

  • Does the topic match your expertise closely enough to provide a fair, high-quality review? If not, please decline promptly so another reviewer can be invited.

Conflicts of Interest (COI)

  • Do you have any potential conflicts (financial, professional, institutional, or personal) with the authors, institutions, or the work?

  • Examples include recent collaboration, same institution, close personal relationships, direct competition, or financial interest.

  • If unsure, contact the editor before accepting.

Timeline

  • Can you complete the review within the requested timeframe? If you anticipate delays, notify the editor immediately so expectations can be managed.

Confidentiality (Strict)

  • Manuscripts are confidential documents. Do not share, distribute, or discuss the submission with others without editorial permission.

  • Strict note on Generative AI: Do not upload manuscripts (or any part of them) into generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT or similar services), and do not input confidential content into external systems. This may breach confidentiality and intellectual property and may compromise the double-blind review process.

Double-Blind Integrity

  • If you believe you have identified the authors or institutions, continue the review only if you can remain objective; otherwise, inform the editor and request guidance.

  • If you inadvertently reveal your identity to authors or suspect a breach of anonymity, notify the editor.

3. Conducting the Review

EduRE values reviews that are constructive, specific, and evidence-based.

Constructive Feedback

  • Focus on how the manuscript can be improved. Avoid personal remarks, derogatory language, or assumptions about the authors.

Evidence-Based Judgment

  • Support critiques with examples from the text and, where helpful, references to relevant literature or reporting standards.

Suggested Review Structure (Recommended)

  • Brief summary: 2–4 sentences describing what the paper claims and its main contribution.

  • Major comments: Substantive issues affecting validity, rigor, interpretation, or contribution (e.g., design, analysis, ethics, alignment with research questions).

  • Minor comments: Clarity, organization, formatting, language, and small factual issues.

  • Recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject (as requested by the system).

Co-Reviewing / Mentoring (With Permission)

  • If you want to involve a junior colleague or student for mentoring purposes, you must obtain prior written approval from the editor. Any approved co-reviewer must also comply with confidentiality and COI requirements.

Reporting Misconduct or Integrity Concerns

  • If you suspect plagiarism, fabricated data, redundant publication, unethical research practices, or image manipulation, report it to the editor using Confidential Comments to the Editor (do not include accusations in comments to authors).

4. After You Submit Your Review

  • Editors may ask for clarification or for a brief follow-up review of a revised manuscript.

  • If the manuscript returns to you after revision, please focus on whether the authors have addressed the major points and whether new issues have arisen.

5. Professional Recognition

EduRE values the time and expertise of reviewers.

  • We encourage reviewers to link their reviewing activity to their ORCID profile where applicable.

  • Reviewers may request a formal Reviewer Certificate after completing a review.

For more detailed guidance, please consult COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. If you experience technical issues or have questions, please contact the editorial office.