Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning (J-HyTEL) utilizes an online submission and peer review system to ensure the efficient and transparent processing of all submitted manuscripts. This policy outlines the procedures and expectations for the peer review process, aligned with the journal's publication ethics and ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, as provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Selection of Papers
The editorial board evaluates all submitted manuscripts to ensure they align with the journal’s scope and focus. Manuscripts are selected for peer review based on their quality, relevance, and potential contribution to technology-enhanced learning and computer science applications.
Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the manuscript’s subject matter. At least two independent reviewers are assigned to each manuscript. If necessary, additional reviewers may be invited to provide further opinions. The editorial board follows best practices to avoid conflicts of interest and ensures that reviewers are selected objectively, avoiding counterfeit reviewers.
Double-Blind Peer Review Process
The journal follows a double-blind peer review process, where both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential. This process ensures impartiality and fairness during the evaluation of manuscripts. By maintaining anonymity, the review process minimizes potential biases and allows for an objective assessment of the manuscript's scientific quality and contribution to the field.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Relevance to the scope of J-HyTEL
- Novelty and originality of the research
- The soundness of the methodology
- Significance of the results and their contribution to the field
- Appropriateness of the references and citations
- Clarity and coherence of the manuscript
Feedback from reviewers is forwarded to the corresponding author for revision or response. The editorial board considers the reviewers' recommendations when making the final decision on the manuscript, ensuring a transparent decision-making process consistent with J-HyTEL's publication ethics.
Timing and Efficiency
J-HyTEL is committed to a structured and timely review process that ensures the efficient handling of all submissions. The timeline is as follows:
-
Initial Review Invitation:
- Upon receiving the invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers must respond within 1 week, either by accepting or declining the request. A prompt response is essential to maintaining an efficient review process.
-
Review Completion:
-
Once the invitation is accepted, reviewers have 2-3 weeks to conduct a thorough evaluation of the manuscript. During this period, reviewers are expected to follow the specific review criteria set by J-HyTEL to ensure a comprehensive and consistent review.
-
-
Total Review Timeline:
- The total review process, from invitation to completion, is expected to take no longer than 4 weeks. If reviewers cannot meet this timeline, they must notify the editorial board as early as possible to arrange alternatives or negotiate exceptions.
Plagiarism Screening
All manuscripts submitted to J-HyTEL are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin software. Manuscripts with a similarity score exceeding 20% will be returned to the authors for revision or may be rejected based on the extent of the plagiarism detected.
Confidentiality
The editorial board ensures that all manuscripts, reviews, and related communications remain confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript with any third party during or after the review process.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Both authors and reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If a conflict of interest is identified, reviewers must recuse themselves from the review process. The editorial board ensures that the peer review process remains transparent and unbiased.
Use of AI in the Review Process
Reviewers are not permitted to use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies to evaluate manuscripts or draft reviews. All assessments and feedback must reflect the reviewer’s own expertise and judgment, ensuring the integrity and originality of the peer review process.
If a reviewer uses AI tools for administrative purposes, such as grammar or spell-checking, they must disclose this to the editor and ensure that the final review reflects their own critical evaluation.