Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning uses an online submission system and a structured double-blind peer review process to support fair, confidential, timely, and evidence-based editorial decisions.
Transparent, Ethical & Efficient Review
The process is aligned with the journal's publication ethics and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers . Editors retain responsibility for the final publication decision.
Selection of Papers & Reviewers
Only manuscripts that meet the journal's basic editorial, ethical, and scholarly requirements proceed to external review.
Selection of Papers
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor assesses each submission for alignment with the journal's aims and scope, scholarly relevance, originality, ethical compliance, manuscript preparation, and potential contribution.
Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected according to relevant subject expertise, methodological competence, publication or professional experience, independence, availability, and the absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
Two Independent External Reviewers
Each research manuscript that proceeds to publication must receive at least two completed reviews from independent external experts. Additional review may be requested when reports conflict, specialist expertise is needed, or the editor requires adjudication.
Double-Blind Peer Review
The journal does not disclose author identities to reviewers or reviewer identities to authors and requires anonymised reviewer-facing files. These safeguards are intended to reduce avoidable bias and keep attention on scholarly merit. Because authorship may sometimes be inferred or independently discovered through preprints, repositories, conference materials, datasets, institutional webpages, or other public records, J-HyTEL applies double-blind safeguards to the extent reasonably possible but does not guarantee absolute anonymity.
Preprints During Double-Blind Review
J-HyTEL permits appropriately disclosed preprints and other permitted forms of prior dissemination in accordance with the journal's Preprint & Prior Dissemination Policy. A disclosed preprint does not, by itself, disqualify a manuscript or convert it into prior journal publication.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript consistently across six core dimensions.
Scope & Relevance
Does the manuscript fit the journal's focus and address a meaningful problem for its readership?
Novelty & Originality
Does the work offer a distinct contribution, new evidence, or a meaningful extension of prior knowledge?
Methodological Soundness
Are the design, methods, data, analysis, and reporting suitable for the research questions?
Results & Contribution
Are the findings credible, appropriately interpreted, and significant to the field?
References & Citations
Are sources relevant, balanced, current where appropriate, and accurately cited?
Clarity & Coherence
Is the manuscript logically organised, understandable, consistent, and professionally presented?
Standard Review Timeline
The journal aims to maintain a timely process while allowing reviewers sufficient time for careful evaluation.
Reviewers should accept or decline promptly after receiving the invitation.
Accepted assignments should be completed carefully within the standard review period.
The journal aims to complete the initial external-review stage within approximately four weeks, although actual processing times may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for additional expertise.
Reviewers who cannot meet the deadline should notify the editorial office as early as possible so that an extension or replacement reviewer can be arranged.
Decisions, Revisions & Re-Review
Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript, the reviewers' reports, the authors' responses, ethical considerations, and the journal's standards. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and revision does not guarantee acceptance.
Non-Research Content, Special Issues & Editorial Submissions
Exceptions to the usual external-review process are limited, declared, and do not reduce the standards applied to research articles.
Confidentiality, Originality & Conflicts
Editorial safeguards operate before, during, and after external review.
Plagiarism Screening
Submitted manuscripts are screened for textual overlap in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism and Similarity Screening Policy. Similarity reports are interpreted by an editor; a percentage alone does not establish plagiarism or determine an editorial outcome.
Read Plagiarism Policy ↗Confidentiality
Manuscripts, review reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished information must not be disclosed, shared, or used for personal advantage.
Conflicts of Interest
Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose financial, professional, academic, institutional, or personal relationships that could affect impartiality.
Reviewer & Editor Recusal
A reviewer who cannot provide an independent assessment must notify the editor and withdraw. An editor must recuse from any manuscript involving a relevant financial, personal, professional, academic, supervisory, collaborative, or institutional conflict. The manuscript must then be reassigned to an independent editor. Submissions authored by the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, or an Editorial Board member receive no preferential treatment and must be handled independently.
Peer-Review Record Retention
Submission files, reviewer invitations and responses, reviewer identity-verification records, conflict-of-interest disclosures, review reports, author response letters, revision histories, editorial correspondence, and decision letters are retained securely within the journal's controlled OJS environment for a minimum of five years following the final editorial decision, subject to applicable legal, ethical, privacy, and data-protection requirements. Access is restricted to authorised editorial personnel and may be provided only when necessary for legitimate journal operations, appeals, complaints, publication-ethics investigations, legal obligations, or protection of the scholarly record.
Reviewer Certificates & Official Documents Portal
Reviewers who complete an eligible peer-review assignment for J-HyTEL receive a reviewer certificate as formal recognition of their scholarly service and contribution to the journal's peer-review process. The certificate recognises the reviewer's contribution while preserving the confidentiality of the manuscript, authors, editorial correspondence, and reviewer report.
Use of Generative AI in Peer Review
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, data, supplementary files, review forms, author information, or confidential editorial correspondence to external generative AI or AI-assisted systems. Generative AI must not be used to evaluate or summarise a manuscript, generate substantive criticism, draft or rewrite a review, translate confidential review content, or determine an editorial recommendation.
The full requirements are set out in the journal's Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy. This section is a peer-review summary and should be read consistently with that policy.
- Uploading confidential manuscript or review content to external generative AI systems
- Delegating scientific evaluation, criticism, or recommendation to AI
- Using AI to draft, rewrite, summarise, or translate confidential review content
- Allowing AI output to replace the reviewer's expertise and independent judgement
- Conventional local non-generative spelling or grammar checking
- No transmission, retention, or exposure of confidential material
- No alteration of substantive reviewer judgement
- The reviewer remains fully accountable for every submitted comment