Reviewer Guidelines
|
REVIEWER GUIDELINES Guideline for Reviewing a Manuscript International Transactions on Education Technology (ITEE) · Supporting a fair, rigorous, and constructive review of research in educational technology |
| Double-blind Review model |
≥ 3 reviewers Per manuscript |
7 days To respond to an invitation |
3 weeks To complete a review |
ITEE applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other. Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least three (3) reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected by the Editor on the basis of their academic background and research experience. Reviewers are requested to respond to an invitation within seven (7) days and to accept it only if the manuscript is within their field of expertise, they have no conflict of interest, and they are able to complete the review within three (3) weeks. If more time is needed, the reviewer should inform the Editor as early as possible. The review is submitted through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS), and the final decision on each manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
|
Before accepting an invitation, please confirm that: ☐ The manuscript is within your field of expertise. ☐ You have no conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions. ☐ You can complete the review within three (3) weeks. |
Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript on the basis of the following criteria and to provide specific comments that will help the authors improve their work.
|
1. Scope and Research Contribution Is the manuscript within the focus and scope of ITEE? Is the research question clearly stated, and does the study offer a new and meaningful contribution to educational technology? |
2. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation Does the manuscript discuss relevant and recent studies? Is the theoretical basis appropriate, and is the research gap clearly identified? Reviewers may suggest important studies that have not been cited. |
|
3. Research Methodology Are the research design, participants or data sources, instruments, procedures, and analysis suitable and described in enough detail to allow the study to be repeated? Where human participants are involved, is ethical approval or informed consent stated? |
4. Results and Discussion Are the results presented clearly and in a logical order? Are the analysis and statistical methods appropriate, and is the interpretation supported by the data and compared with previous studies? |
|
5. Educational and Practical Implications Does the manuscript explain the value of its findings for educators, institutions, learning designers, technology developers, or policymakers, and are these implications supported by the results? |
6. Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Research Does the conclusion answer the research objectives without introducing new results? Are the limitations acknowledged and directions for future research suggested? |
|
7. Manuscript Quality and Presentation Is the manuscript well structured and written in clear English? Are tables and figures consistent with the text and easy to read? Are the references relevant, complete, and written in the IEEE style? Reviewers should also note any citations that appear excessive or unrelated to the content of the manuscript. |
|
Originality and Research Integrity
|
All manuscripts are checked for similarity using Turnitin before they are sent for review. If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other misconduct, the reviewer should inform the Editor through the confidential comments field and should not contact the authors directly. Reviewers must not ask authors to cite the reviewer's own work or articles from ITEE unless the citation is clearly relevant and necessary. |
|
Ethical Responsibilities and Confidentiality Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use their content for any purpose. Consulting a colleague requires the Editor's permission. Reviews must be objective and supported by clear arguments, without personal criticism and without regard to the authors' nationality, gender, religion, institution, or political views. Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest, decline the review if it could affect their judgment, and must not attempt to identify the authors. |
Responsible Use of Generative AI Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript or their review report to generative AI tools, as this may breach the confidentiality of the manuscript. Generative AI must not be used to evaluate a manuscript or to write the review. It may be used only to improve the language of the reviewer's own comments, and the reviewer remains fully responsible for the content. |
Writing the Review Report
| 1 | Summary. Begin with a short summary of the manuscript and its main contribution. |
| 2 | Major points. Describe the main issues that affect the validity or contribution of the study. |
| 3 | Minor points. List smaller corrections, referring to the relevant sections, pages, or lines. |
| 4 | Confidential comments. Write comments intended only for the Editor in the confidential comments field in OJS. |
Reviewer Recommendation
At the end of the review, reviewers are requested to select one of the following recommendations:
| Accept | The manuscript can be published without further changes. |
| Minor Revision | The manuscript requires small corrections that do not affect its main content. |
| Major Revision | The manuscript requires substantial changes and should be reviewed again after revision. |
| Reject | The manuscript is not suitable for publication in ITEE because of serious problems in scope, originality, methodology, or quality. |
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision after considering the recommendations of all reviewers and the editorial policies of the journal.
|
Joining the Reviewer Board Researchers with a doctoral degree or equivalent research experience in educational technology or a related field are welcome to join. Please attach a brief CV with your affiliation, field of expertise, recent publications, and Scopus ID, ORCID iD, or Google Scholar profile. Reviewers who complete a review receive a certificate of acknowledgement. |
Commitment to Review Integrity ITEE values the time and expertise that reviewers contribute to the journal. By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to follow these guidelines and the Publication Ethics of the journal, which are based on the COPE Core Practices, so that every manuscript receives a fair, careful, and confidential evaluation. |
