Review guidelines

 

 

As a reviewer, you play an important role in ensuring that all articles are submitted to the JournalJournal of Educational Science Learning and Research has sufficient quality and novelty to attract readers and advance our goal of accelerating the development of educational science studies. This guide will help you understand your responsibilities as a reviewer, as well as your ethical obligations to the journal and authors. You will also be introduced to what you should look for in a manuscript, so that your review will be thorough and consistent with other reviewers' reviews.

Your Responsibilities as a Reviewer

As a reviewer, you will be responsible for reading the manuscript and evaluating its suitability for publication in the Journal Of Educational Science Learning And Research. You are expected to provide constructive, impartial, unambiguous, and honest feedback to authors, with the goal of encouraging them to improve their manuscripts. The Journal of Educational Science Learning and Research is committed to supporting the development of young academics and emerging political thinkers. Every author submitting to a journal should, regardless of whether their manuscript is accepted, be provided with a positive experience and be enhanced as a writer and researcher. While reviews should be critical, they should not undermine accurate scientific communication. Therefore, any review that in any way demeans or discourages the author from submitting back to this or any other journal will be immediately discarded, and any reviewer who attacks the author or his work will be blacklisted.

Your Ethical Responsibilities

Journal Of Educational Science Learning And Research relies on the impartiality and discretion of reviewers, and as a reviewer, you are entrusted with confidential material intended solely for critical evaluation. We expect you to treat all documents and correspondence related to the review with an appropriate level of discretion.

  • It is not permitted to use any information to further your own research or to discredit others.
  • It is not permitted to discuss any aspect of the manuscript with third parties.
  • Ensure that information and details of the review process remain confidential before, during, and after publication.
  • Maintain the integrity of the review process. Under no circumstances is it permitted to contact any authors to discuss their manuscripts.
  • Be fair, honest and objective in evaluating manuscripts.
  • Declare a conflict of interest, and withdraw immediately if you believe your impartiality has been compromised.

Things to consider before agreeing to review a manuscript

Before you agree to review a manuscript, you must be sure that you have the expertise and time necessary to provide a critical evaluation of the article. You must ensure that:

  • The article matches your expertise. Log in to your account and read the manuscript abstract to determine whether your area of ​​expertise matches the manuscript.
  • You can complete the review on time and dedicate appropriate time to conduct a thorough review. The review must be completed within a month. If you feel you cannot complete the review within this timeframe, notify the editor. If possible, please also suggest alternative reviewers. If you agree to review a manuscript, but then find yourself unable to complete it on time, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
  • You have no conflict of interest. Determine whether there are any conflicts of interest that could affect your impartiality in evaluating the manuscript. If so, you should contact the editor and resign immediately. If you cannot detect any conflicts before agreeing to a review request, but discover them during review, simply contact the editor and explain why you cannot proceed.

Review Process

Review Procedures

The Journal of Educational Science Learning and Research uses an online submission system. When a reviewer is appointed to an article submitted to JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCE LEARNING AND RESEARCH, they will have a journal account created for them, where they will be able to read the abstract and decide whether to agree to review it.

If you are asked to review a paper, simply log in to your reviewer account, read the provided abstract, and indicate whether you agree to review it. If you decline to review a manuscript, please include the reasons, and if possible, suggest alternative reviewers from similar fields.

To ensure the integrity of the review process, all further correspondence will go through this system, with reviewers given access to the complete manuscript and provided with a review page to fill out and submit. If you wish, you can also provide comments directly on the manuscript file, but ensure that all comments are anonymous and focus on the content of the article, not its layout or format.

Basic Criteria

Good reviewers look at the overall quality of the manuscript and the accuracy and precision of its details. When evaluating manuscripts for JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCE LEARNING AND RESEARCH, pay attention to the following aspects:

  • SCOPE. Is the manuscript within the scope of the Journal Of Educational Science Learning And Research? How interesting is the article to journal readers?
  • RESEARCH NEWEST. Is the article new and interesting enough? Does it add new knowledge? How original is the research?
  • SUITABILITY OF THE TITLE. Does the title accurately represent the content?
  • QUALITY OF CONTENT. Does the article comply with the standards of the Journal of Educational Science Learning and Research? Is the research question important? Does the manuscript help to expand or advance current research in its respective field?
  • METHODOLOGY. Is the methodology description informative, clear, and concise? Was the research methodology appropriate and carried out correctly? How appropriate the experimental approach or design is
  • SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS. Do the results have significant implications for educational science studies?
  • SUITABILITY OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND/OR ADDITIONAL MATERIALS. Is every figure/table necessary and explained correctly? Does the additional material match the content?
  • DATA COMPLETENESS. How complete is the data?
  • RELEVANCE OF THE DISCUSSION. Is the discussion relevant to the results and other content? Have the authors appropriately discussed their results in the context of previous research?
  • SUITABILITY OF CITATION/REFERENCE. Do all quotes count? Is there an appropriate number of citations for the content (neither too few nor too many)?
  • CLARITY OF CONTENT. How good is his English? Will readers of Ar Rehla have difficulty understanding its contents?
  • COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES Journal Of Educational Science Learning And Research. Does the manuscript comply with journal guidelines, such as manuscript structure? Have tables and figures been submitted separately?
  • COMPLIANCE WITH CORRECT SCIENTIFIC NOMENCLATURE. Are species names up to date and spelled correctly? Are technical terms used correctly?

Ethical Considerations

In addition to the criteria above, also pay attention to whether the manuscript contains examples of plagiarism, inappropriate references, republication, or fraud. Things to look for:

  • PLAGIARISM. Observe whether parts of the text have been copied from other works without giving proper credit. For example, the text has been copied verbatim without clear indication that it is a quotation, the text has been copied but not quoted (indicating that these are the author's own words/ideas), or a portion of the text has been copied without permission from the original author. If you find that a large portion of the manuscript has been plagiarized, please contact the editor as soon as possible so that we can take appropriate action.
  • MISSING, WRONG, OR INCOMPLETE REFERENCES. All previously published text, figures, tables, data, ideas, or concepts must be cited. It is considered plagiarism for an author to present something as their own even though it is not, regardless of their intentions.
  • REPUBLICATION. It is against Ar Rehla policy to publish work that has been published elsewhere. Please notify the editor if you find examples of manuscripts that have been previously published (in whole or in part).
  • FRAUD. Any part of the manuscript found to be incorrect should be highlighted as such. Any form of data manipulation or tampering should be brought to the editor's attention.

Publication ethics are not limited to these four things. If you believe the author has attempted to mislead readers, violate a copyright or patent, or may compromise the integrity of the journal in any other way, please contact the handling editor.

Sending Review Results

Once you have gathered enough information to make a decision about the manuscript, log in to your Journal Of Educational Science Learning And Research account to complete the review. At a minimum, you will be asked to assess the manuscript based on the criteria mentioned above, as well as summarize your main findings and provide your overall impression of the article. We encourage you to optionally take the opportunity to comment on the manuscript in more detail, and provide specific suggestions that may improve any aspect of it.

Good Review

It is important to ensure that all comments are constructive and intended to improve the quality of the manuscript or help the author understand where they went wrong. Please reconsider making comments that do not fall within this scope, and avoid making comments that trivialize or disparage the work.

Follow good commenting practices. As an example:

  • Do not comment on the acceptance of the manuscript, and avoid suggesting revisions as a condition for acceptance.
  • Provide detailed and unambiguous comments.
  • Be respectful and positive. Your goal should be to help writers improve their articles, by providing constructive criticism and helpful suggestions. (Consider how you would like your own manuscript to be reviewed.)
  • Highlight areas that need clarification or need to be explained further by the author. Make suggestions about how the author can improve problematic sections. How can they improve the clarity of certain passages? You are not required to edit the author's style or grammar, but any improvements to the clarity of the manuscript are appreciated, especially when it comes to technical terms.
  • Highlight consistent examples of outdated or misspelled technical terminology.
  • Avoid making dogmatic statements. You should be able to back up your comments with evidence or priorities in previous literature.
  • Be careful not to discount the manuscript, either in terms of its novelty, methodology, or findings.

Recommendation

Your final task as a reviewer is to recommend that the manuscript a) be accepted as is, b) be accepted with minor revisions, c) be accepted with major revisions, d) be accepted with major revisions (requires review), e) be rejected but with a recommendation to resubmit after the work is more developed, or f) rejected outright. If your recommendation is to reject a manuscript, you must explain why.

Each recommendation must be supported by evaluation facts, and supported by constructive criticism. A good critical review will allow Journal Of Educational Science Learning And Research to make an informed final decision about the manuscript. Also note that the final decision on a manuscript is made by the editorial board, taking into account the recommendations of each reviewer, and your recommendations may not be reflected in these decisions.