Reviewer Guidelines

Journal of Contemporary Education and Innovation relies on the expertise of dedicated reviewers to maintain the high academic standards of the journal. Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating the quality and originality of manuscripts submitted for publication. These guidelines are provided to help reviewers assess submissions in a fair, transparent, and constructive manner.

1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

As a reviewer for Journal of Contemporary Education and Innovation, you are expected to:

·         Provide an impartial assessment of the manuscript’s quality, originality, significance, and relevance to the field of contemporary education and innovation.

·         Ensure the manuscript adheres to ethical standards in research, including proper citation, no plagiarism, and ethical treatment of participants (if applicable).

·         Give constructive feedback to the authors, offering suggestions for improvement, clarification, or strengthening of the argument.

·         Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process. Manuscripts must not be discussed with others or shared in any form.

·         Report conflicts of interest: If you feel there is any personal or professional conflict of interest, kindly inform the journal's editorial team so you can be excused from the review process.

2. What to Review

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the following aspects of the manuscript:

·         Originality: Does the manuscript offer new insights or contribute to the existing body of knowledge in education and innovation?

·         Relevance: Is the research topic relevant to the scope and aims of the journal? Does it engage with contemporary issues in education or innovative pedagogical practices?

·         Methodology: Are the research design and methods clearly described and appropriate for the research question? Is the analysis valid and reliable?

·         Results and Interpretation: Are the findings presented clearly, and do the authors provide an insightful and meaningful interpretation of the results?

·         Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-written and logically organized? Is the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, and conclusion clearly structured?

·         References: Are the references current, relevant, and comprehensive? Do they adequately support the manuscript’s claims?

3. Review Process

·         Timeframe: Reviewers are typically given 4–6 weeks to complete their review. If additional time is required, reviewers should notify the editorial team as soon as possible.

·         Review Format: Reviewers should submit a written evaluation through the journal’s online submission system, including:

o    A general summary of the manuscript.

o    A list of strengths and weaknesses.

o    Specific suggestions for improvement (e.g., clarification of points, additional references, etc.).

o    A recommendation on whether the manuscript should be:

§  Accepted

§  Minor revisions required

§  Major revisions required

§  Rejected

4. Ethical Considerations

·         Plagiarism: Reviewers should be vigilant for any signs of plagiarism or improper use of citations. If plagiarism is suspected, the reviewer should report it to the editorial team immediately.

·         Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential and must not use information from the manuscript for their own benefit or the benefit of others.

·         Bias: Reviewers must avoid personal biases and conflicts of interest. If the manuscript is related to your own work or you have a close professional or personal relationship with the authors, you should decline the review invitation.

5. Feedback to Authors

Reviewers should provide constructive, respectful, and detailed feedback to help authors improve their work. Feedback should be:

·         Clear: Be specific in your suggestions and comments.

·         Objective: Focus on the quality of the research rather than personal opinions.

·         Supportive: Offer solutions and alternatives when identifying issues in the manuscript.

6. Final Decision

After receiving the reviewer feedback, the editorial team will make the final decision on the manuscript. The decision could be:

·         Accepted: The manuscript is ready for publication as it is.

·         Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes, typically to improve clarity, formatting, or address specific minor issues.

·         Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions to the methodology, data analysis, or overall structure before it can be reconsidered for publication.

·         Rejected: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in Journal of Contemporary Education and Innovation.

7. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

·         Confidentiality: The review process is confidential, and all information regarding the manuscript must not be shared or discussed with anyone else.

·         Conflicts of Interest: If you have any potential conflicts of interest regarding the manuscript (e.g., personal relationships, financial interests, etc.), please notify the journal and decline the review invitation.

8. Becoming a Reviewer

If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for Journal of Contemporary Education and Innovation, please contact the editorial team with your qualifications and areas of expertise. We value the contributions of scholars and practitioners who can provide high-quality reviews to support the academic integrity of the journal.

9. Reviewer Recognition

To acknowledge the important role that reviewers play, Journal of Contemporary Education and Innovation  will provide an official letter of recognition for your contributions, which can be used for professional development purposes. Reviewers may also be listed on the journal’s website as part of our reviewer acknowledgement.