Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

As a reviewer for the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning (J-HyTEL), you play an important role in ensuring that the manuscripts we publish are of high academic quality and contribute to advancing research in technology-enhanced learning or computer science applications. We greatly value your time and expertise. The following guidelines outline your responsibilities, ethical obligations, and manuscript evaluation criteria.

Before You Accept or Decline a Review Invitation

Please consider the following questions before accepting or declining a review invitation:

  1. Is the article within your expertise?
    Only accept the invitation if the manuscript is in your area of expertise, to ensure you can provide the most relevant and valuable feedback.

  2. Do you have a conflict of interest?
    If there is any potential conflict of interest (financial, professional, or personal), you must disclose it to the editor immediately and, if necessary, recuse yourself from the review.

  3. Do you have enough time?

    • Acceptance of Assignment (1 Week): After receiving the invitation, you have 1 week to confirm your availability to review the manuscript. If you are unable to commit to the review within this time, please inform the editor as soon as possible so that a replacement can be arranged.

    • Review Process (2-3 Weeks): The review itself should be completed within 2-3 weeks from your acceptance of the assignment. This includes evaluating the manuscript, providing detailed feedback, and submitting your review to the editor.

Whether you accept or decline the review invitation, please respond promptly. Delayed responses will slow down the editorial process. If you decline, please suggest alternative reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

Your Role and Responsibilities

As a reviewer, your primary role is to provide an objective, constructive, and timely assessment of the manuscript. Your feedback will help authors improve the quality of their work and guide the editorial decision-making process. Specifically, you are expected to:

  • Evaluate the manuscript’s suitability for publication in J-HyTEL.
  • Provide constructive, fair, and respectful feedback encouraging authors to refine their manuscripts.
  • Help uphold the integrity of the peer review process by maintaining confidentiality and ensuring impartiality.

We believe that all authors, regardless of whether their manuscript is accepted, should leave the review process with a positive experience, having gained valuable insights into improving their work.

J-HyTEL promotes an inclusive and supportive academic environment. Reviews should never discourage authors from resubmitting to this or any other journal. Any derogatory or inappropriate review will be disregarded, and reviewers who breach this policy may be removed from our reviewer list.

Ethical Obligations

As a reviewer, you are entrusted with privileged information. We expect you to uphold the highest ethical standards as outlined by COPE, ensuring:

  • Confidentiality:
    The manuscript's content and your review comments must remain confidential before, during, and after publication. You must not use or share any part of the manuscript without explicit permission from the journal.

  • Impartiality and Integrity:
    Provide an honest, unbiased review based on the merits of the manuscript. Avoid personal criticism of the authors. If your impartiality is compromised, please notify the editor and withdraw from the review.

  • Conflict of Interest:
    Disclose any conflict of interest that may affect your judgment. If you discover a conflict after accepting the review, notify the editor immediately.

Criteria for Evaluating a Manuscript

When reviewing a manuscript for J-HyTEL, please assess the following criteria:

  1. Scope and Relevance:
    Is the manuscript within the journal’s scope? How relevant and interesting will it be to the journal’s readership?

  2. Novelty and Originality:
    Does the manuscript present novel insights or add significant value to existing research? Is the research question original and relevant?

  3. Title Accuracy:
    Does the title reflect the content and scope of the manuscript accurately?

  4. Content Quality and Research Significance:
    Is the research question important? Does the manuscript make a significant contribution to the field of technology-enhanced learning?

  5. Methodology:
    Is the research design robust, clearly explained, and appropriate for answering the research question? Are the methods reproducible and properly detailed?

  6. Results:
    Are the results well-presented and significant? Do they support the conclusions drawn?

  7. Figures, Tables, and Supplemental Material:
    Are figures and tables necessary, well-organized, and clearly labeled? Is supplemental material relevant and appropriately used?

  8. Data Completeness:
    Are the data sufficient and complete to support the conclusions? Is additional data required to validate the findings?

  9. Discussion and Relevance:
    Does the discussion address the results appropriately and within the context of prior research? Are the authors’ interpretations reasonable?

  10. Citations and References:
    Are the references appropriate and sufficient? Are all sources correctly cited, and is there a proper balance between too few and too many citations?

  11. Clarity and Readability:
    Is the manuscript clearly written and easy to understand? Are there sections that require more explanation or clarity for readers?

  12. Adherence to Journal Guidelines:
    Does the manuscript follow the journal’s submission guidelines, including structure, table, and figure formatting?

  13. Scientific Nomenclature:
    Are technical terms and scientific names used correctly and consistently?

Ethical Considerations in Manuscripts

As part of your review, please pay attention to potential ethical issues such as:

  • Plagiarism:
    Ensure that the manuscript does not include plagiarized content. Check whether ideas, text, or data have been taken from other sources without appropriate attribution.

  • Fraudulent Data or Misrepresentation:
    Look for any signs of data falsification or manipulation. If you suspect misconduct, please notify the editor immediately.

  • Improper Citation or Incomplete References:
    Verify that proper citations support all claims in the manuscript. Ensure that the authors have correctly cited previous work.

  • Duplicate Publication:
    Ensure the manuscript has not been published elsewhere, partially or fully.

If you identify any ethical violations or concerns, contact the editor-in-chief immediately.
J-HyTEL follows COPE guidelines for handling ethical issues.

Submitting Your Review

Once your review is complete, log into your J-HyTEL account to submit it through the online system. Your review should include:

  1. Here are the typical options available for overall recommendation in OJS:

    • Accept Submission

      • The article can be accepted as is, without significant changes, as it meets the journal's standards.

    • Revisions Required

      • The article is accepted in principle, but some minor revisions are needed before it can be published. The author will be asked to adjust based on the reviewers' feedback.

    • Resubmit for Review

      • The article requires significant revisions. Before a final decision can be made, the author must revise the manuscript and resubmit it for another round of review.

    • Resubmit Elsewhere

      • The article is unsuitable for this journal but may be appropriate for another one. The author is encouraged to submit the manuscript elsewhere.

    • Decline Submission

      • The article is rejected as it does not meet the journal's criteria. This recommendation is typically given when the article is outside the journal's scope or the quality is inadequate.

    • See Comments

      • If the reviewer wishes to provide more detailed comments before making a direct recommendation, they can select this option and suggest that the editor review the comments first.

  2. A summary of your evaluation:
    Highlight the significant strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Provide constructive suggestions for improving the work.

  3. Detailed feedback:
    Optionally, provide specific comments directly in the manuscript, ensuring all annotations are anonymized. Your comments should focus on the scientific content and avoid critiquing formatting or minor language issues unless they significantly affect clarity.

Making Constructive Comments

Your comments should be constructive and aim to improve the manuscript. Follow these best practices:

  • Be respectful and professional.
    Frame your suggestions in a way that helps the authors improve their work.

  • Avoid personal attacks.
    Criticism should focus on the content, not the authors.

  • Be specific.
    Provide detailed, unambiguous comments that clearly explain any areas needing improvement.

  • Avoid dogmatic statements.
    Ensure that any criticism is backed by evidence from the literature or sound reasoning.

Final Recommendation

Your final recommendation should reflect your evaluation based on the above criteria. Whether or not your recommendation aligns with other reviewers, ensure well-reasoned arguments support it. Remember to consider all reviewers' feedback, the editorial board to make the final decision.

https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
https://publicationethics.org/peerreview
https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers

For more information or inquiries, please contact [Contact Information].