Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines & Evaluation Criteria

This guide outlines the evaluation criteria for the Journal of Educational Innovations and Practices (JEIP). As a reviewer, you will be assessing the "Blinded Manuscript," which must strictly adhere to the double-blind review policy. Please evaluate the manuscript based on the specific sections and quality standards detailed below.

A. Ethical Responsibilities

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

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).

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.

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 just "Technology")?

1. Introduction

✅ Reviewer Criteria

The Gap: Does the author clearly identify what is missing in the current literature?
Originality: Is the study's 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 studies critically rather than just listing them ("X said this, Y said that")?
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 (e.g., quasi-experimental, mixed-methods) appropriate and justified?
3.2 Participants: Is the sample described sufficiently (number, demographics) without revealing identity?
3.3 Data Collection: Are validity and reliability evidences provided for the instruments?
3.4 Data Analysis: Are the procedures transparent? (e.g., for qualitative: coding process; for quantitative: specific tests).
3.5 Ethical Considerations: Is there a statement on informed consent and anonymity? (Note: Specific committee names must NOT appear here).

4. Findings

✅ Reviewer Criteria

Objectivity: Are findings presented without interpretation (which belongs in Discussion)?
Visuals: Do tables and figures follow APA 7 standards?
Alignment: Do the results directly 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 the results occurred (mechanism)?
Literature Integration: Are findings compared/contrasted with previous studies?
Theory Link: Are results discussed in light of the Theoretical Framework mentioned in Section 2?

7. Practical Implications

✅ Reviewer Criteria

Actionable: Are the suggestions concrete and actionable for practitioners/policymakers?
Specific: Avoid generic advice. Suggestions must link directly to the study's findings.

8. Limitations and Future Directions

✅ Reviewer Criteria

Transparency: Are limitations (sample, context, tools) stated honestly?
Future Work: Do future suggestions logically follow from these limitations?

References

✅ Reviewer Criteria

Format: References must strictly follow APA 7th Edition standards.
Completeness: Every in-text citation must have a corresponding entry in the reference list, and vice versa.
Accuracy: DOIs should be included where available (as https://doi.org/...).

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

Mandatory Requirement: You must 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:

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

Final Recommendation Options:

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

JEIP Editorial Office | editor@jeipjournal.org

Read 0 times.

Last Issue