Reviewer Guidelines

REVIEWER GUIDELINES

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer)

ISSN: 2822-4841 | DOI Prefix: 10.29329

Quick Summary

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer) (eISSN: 2822-4841) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This document provides comprehensive guidelines for external reviewers, outlining evaluation criteria, ethical responsibilities, confidentiality requirements, and practical guidance for completing reviews. PedPer’s reviewer expectations are aligned with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

1) Role of the Reviewer

Peer reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scholarly integrity and quality of PedPer. As a reviewer, you are an independent expert who provides an objective, evidence-based assessment of a submitted manuscript. Your feedback helps the Editor-in-Chief make informed decisions and helps authors strengthen their work.

PedPer uses a double-blind review model: you will not know the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) will not know your identity.

2) Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

When you receive a review invitation, please respond within 5 business days. You should accept if:

The manuscript falls within your area of expertise
You can complete the review within the agreed timeframe (target: 4 weeks)
You have no conflicts of interest with the author(s) or the research

You should decline if:

The topic is outside your area of expertise
You have a conflict of interest (personal, institutional, financial, or academic relationship with the likely author(s))
You cannot meet the deadline
You have recently reviewed the same or a closely related manuscript for another journal

If you decline, please suggest alternative reviewers where possible. This helps the editorial office maintain timely processing.

3) Evaluation Criteria

Please evaluate the manuscript against the following criteria. Use the structured review form provided by the OJS system:

Criterion	Key Questions
Originality and significance	Does the manuscript present new findings, perspectives, or approaches? Does it make a meaningful contribution to the field?
Methodological rigor	Is the research design appropriate, clearly described, and systematically executed? Are the methods reproducible?
Theoretical / conceptual framework	Is the study grounded in relevant theory and existing literature? Is the conceptual framework clearly articulated?
Literature review	Is the review comprehensive, current, and critically integrated? Are key sources included?
Data analysis and interpretation	Are the analytical methods sound? Are findings accurately interpreted and supported by the data?
Quality and clarity of writing	Is the manuscript well-organised, clearly written, logically structured, and free of significant language errors?
Ethical compliance	Does the study demonstrate appropriate ethical approvals, informed consent, and responsible data handling?
Implications for practice	Does the manuscript offer clear and actionable implications for educational practice, policy, or future research?
Relevance to journal scope	Does the manuscript align with PedPer’s aims and scope in education research?

4) Reviewer Recommendations

Based on your evaluation, please recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept — The manuscript is suitable for publication without further changes.
Minor Revision — The manuscript requires minor modifications. Specify what changes are needed.
Major Revision — Substantial revisions are required. The revised manuscript will undergo re-review.
Reject — The manuscript is not suitable for publication in PedPer. Provide clear reasons.

5) Writing a Constructive Review

A high-quality review is specific, evidence-based, and respectful. Please:

Begin with a brief summary of the manuscript’s main contribution and strengths
Organise your comments clearly (e.g., major issues, minor issues, editorial suggestions)
Be specific: cite page numbers, paragraph numbers, or section headings when referring to particular points
Focus on the scholarly merit of the work, not on the author’s writing style or personal characteristics
Avoid vague comments such as “needs improvement” without specifying what and how
Suggest concrete improvements rather than simply listing problems
Distinguish between essential revisions and suggestions for improvement

Remember: your review should help the author improve the manuscript, regardless of whether you recommend acceptance or rejection.

6) Confidentiality

The manuscript and all associated materials are confidential documents.
Do not share, discuss, or disclose the manuscript or your review with anyone outside the editorial process.
Do not use ideas, data, methods, or arguments from the manuscript for your own research or any other purpose.
Do not retain copies of the manuscript after the review process is complete.
If you need to consult a colleague for specialist input, you must first obtain permission from the editorial office.

7) Conflicts of Interest

You must declare any potential conflict of interest and recuse yourself if you cannot provide an unbiased review. Conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

Current or recent co-authorship with the likely author(s)
Institutional affiliation with the likely author(s) (same department or research group)
Financial interest in the outcome of the research
Personal or professional relationship that could bias your assessment
Involvement in the research being reported (e.g., as supervisor, collaborator, or consultant)

If you suspect the identity of the author(s) during the review process and have a conflict, please notify the editorial office immediately.

8) Timeliness

PedPer asks reviewers to complete their reviews within 4 weeks of accepting the invitation. If you anticipate a delay, please contact the editorial office as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made.

Timely reviews are essential for maintaining PedPer’s target submission-to-decision timeline of 8–12 weeks.

9) Ethical Responsibilities

As a reviewer, you are expected to adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. In particular:

Evaluate the manuscript solely on its scholarly merit, without bias related to the author(s)’ gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, institutional affiliation, or political views.
Alert the editor to any suspected ethical violations, plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, or undisclosed conflicts of interest in the manuscript.
Do not use your review to promote your own work or to suggest citations to your publications unless genuinely relevant.
Do not deliberately delay a review to gain a competitive advantage.

10) AI Tools in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload any part of the manuscript to generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot) or any other third-party platform. This would breach the confidentiality of the peer review process. Reviewers may use AI tools to assist with language editing of their own review comments, but must not input manuscript content into these tools. See PedPer’s Generative AI Policy for details.

11) Recognition

PedPer values the contribution of its reviewers. The journal acknowledges reviewers annually (with their consent) in a dedicated Reviewer Acknowledgment published in the first issue of each year. Reviewer activity may also be recorded via reviewer recognition platforms such as Web of Science Reviewer Recognition or Publons.

Related Policies