Reviewer Guidelines

Independent, reasoned assessment by specialists

A reviewer report should separate material scientific concerns from stylistic preferences and justify recommendations.

These guidelines govern invitation, acceptance, assessment, recommendation, and later conduct. Reviewers advise the editor through an independent report; they do not decide, act as co-authors, or use the manuscript for personal benefit.

Acceptance confirms expertise, time, confidentiality, and absence of conflict. Any later impediment is reported immediately so reassignment does not cause delay.

Principles

Reviewers must assess manuscripts competently, objectively, respectfully, independently, and confidentially. They should accept only work for which they have sufficient expertise and time.

Report

  • Summarize the contribution without revealing identity.
  • Assess educational relevance, originality, theoretical framework, and methods.
  • Check coherence among results, discussion, and conclusions.
  • Identify limitations, ethical issues, and essential omitted references.
  • Separate author comments from confidential comments to the editor.
  • Avoid offensive language and citation demands intended for personal benefit.

Conflicts and confidentiality

Every conflict must be disclosed before acceptance. The manuscript may not be shared, used, or uploaded to external artificial intelligence tools. Suspected misconduct should be reported to the editor without independent investigation.

Recommendation

The recommendation must be supported by the report. The editor makes the final decision.

Before accepting

The invitation is assessed for topic, method, deadline, and conflicts. The reviewer responds promptly, declares relevant relationships, and suggests alternatives only without exposing confidential information. Acceptance entails delivering an independent report within the agreed period.

Lack of expertise in a central area, recent collaboration with possible authors, direct competition, hierarchical relationships, or financial interests require consultation or decline. Theoretical disagreement alone is not a conflict but must be managed objectively.

Report content

The report begins with a brief assessment of the contribution and separates major from minor comments. Each criticism states the problem, why it matters, and what evidence or correction is needed. Authors are not required to adopt the reviewer’s perspective, and irrelevant citations are not requested.

Review covers the question, novelty, educational context, design, sample, instruments, analysis, presentation of results, interpretation, limitations, ethics, data, and conclusions. Reviewers identify unsupported causal claims and verify that results and conclusions address the objective.

Conduct and submission

Language must be professional and free of personal remarks. Suspected plagiarism, implausible data, manipulation, or consent problems are reported confidentially to the editor with concrete grounds. Reviewers do not contact authors or attempt to discover their identity.

The recommendation must match the report. After submission, reviewers answer reasonable clarifications and disclose any new conflict. They do not retain or reuse manuscripts, data, or ideas and do not delegate review or upload files to external AI tools.

Implementation procedure

  • Respond to the invitation and disclose conflicts before opening complete files.
  • Read the manuscript, supplements, criteria, and review form.
  • Summarize the contribution and assess educational relevance before detailing concerns.
  • Separate major, minor, and confidential comments to the editor.
  • Support every criticism and propose verifiable corrections without imposing preferences.
  • Choose a recommendation consistent with the report and submit on time.
  • Delete files and maintain confidentiality after completion.

Evidence of compliance

  • Invitation, acceptance, and conflict disclosure in OJS.
  • A dated complete report and recommendation.
  • Records of timeliness and report quality.
  • Communications about ethics concerns or clarifications.

Policy monitoring and review

The editor assesses usefulness, respect, depth, expertise, and timeliness. Coercive self-citation, offensive language, disclosure, unauthorized AI use, or superficial reports may lead to warning or removal from the reviewer database.