Peer Review Guidelines

1. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers
Scientific reviewers are the cornerstone of ensuring the quality, credibility, and integrity of research published in the " Journal of Educational". Key expectations from reviewers include:
• Providing an objective, constructive, and unbiased assessment of research manuscripts.
• Evaluating the scientific accuracy of the methodology used, its rigor, and the originality of the submitted research.
• Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the study, while alerting to any potential methodological or ethical issues.
• Maintaining information confidentiality and refraining from sharing any details of the manuscript with any party.
2. Scientific Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:
• Clarity and Significance: The clarity of the research problem and its importance in enriching knowledge in the field of education.
• Methodological Soundness: The appropriateness of the tools and methodology used, the clarity of research procedures, and the generalizability or replicability of the results.
• Data Analysis and Validity: The accuracy of statistical analyses (if applicable) and the correct interpretation of the results.
• Originality and Knowledge Contribution: The extent to which the research contributes new knowledge or develops educational practices.
• Ethical Compliance: The adherence of the research to ethical guidelines in the educational and human sciences, including participant consent.
• Presentation and Organization Quality: The organization of the manuscript, clarity of language, and proper citation according to the approved publishing guide.
3. Review Ethics and Confidentiality
The reviewer pledges to adhere to the ethical practices of peer review, which include:
• Immediately disclosing any potential conflict of interest before agreeing to the review process.
• Providing an opinion with complete objectivity and neutrality, free from any personal or academic bias.
• Maintaining strict confidentiality of the manuscript and the review content, and not using it for any personal purpose.
• Providing constructive criticism that focuses on the content of the work without personal attacks.
4. Review Process and Timeline
• Completing the review process and returning the report within the specified deadline (typically between two to four weeks).
• Preparing a detailed review report that accurately outlines the strengths and weaknesses, with clear recommendations.
• The available evaluation options are: Accept without modifications, Accept after minor revisions, Accept after major revisions, or Reject.
• The reviewer may suggest additional academic references or methodological improvements to enhance the quality of the research.
5. Communication and Reporting Concerns
Reviewers should:
• Immediately inform the editorial board of any potential ethical violations (such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or conflict of interest).
• Provide clear and specific feedback that enables authors to improve and develop their research.
• Suggest alternative reviewer names if they are unable to conduct the evaluation objectively.
The " Journal of Educational" expresses its deep gratitude for the expertise and contributions of its esteemed reviewers, which are a fundamental pillar for maintaining the high academic standards we aspire to.