Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

As a reviewer for the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning, the role involves ensuring that manuscripts meet high academic standards and contribute to advancing research in technology-enhanced learning or computer science applications. The following guidelines outline the responsibilities, ethical obligations, and criteria for manuscript evaluation.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

  • Expertise: Accept the invitation only if the manuscript aligns with your area of expertise to ensure relevant and valuable feedback.
  • Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts (financial, professional, or personal) immediately. If necessary, recuse from the review.
  • Time Commitment:
    • Acceptance: Confirm availability within 1 week of receiving the invitation.
    • Review: Complete the review within 2-3 weeks from acceptance.

Prompt responses are necessary to avoid delays. If declining the invitation, suggest alternative reviewers with appropriate expertise.

Role and Responsibilities

  • Objectivity: Reviews should be unbiased, constructive, and submitted in a timely manner.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscript content and review comments must remain confidential before, during, and after the review process.
  • Impartiality: Reviews should focus solely on the merits of the manuscript. In case of a conflict of interest, the editor should be notified, and the reviewer should withdraw from the review process.

Ethical Obligations

  • Manuscript content must not be shared or used without explicit permission.
  • Reviews should be honest, unbiased, and based on scientific merit. Avoid personal criticism.
  • Any conflict of interest must be disclosed immediately.

Criteria for Evaluating Manuscripts

When reviewing a manuscript, consider the following questions:

Fit and Relevance

1. Does the paper fit the standards and scope of the journal?
2. Is the research question clear?

Study Design and Approach

3. Was the approach appropriate for answering the research question?
4. Is the study design, methods, and analysis appropriate to the question being studied?

Innovation and Contribution

5. Is the study innovative or original?
6. Does the study challenge existing paradigms or add to existing knowledge?
7. Does it develop novel concepts?
8. Does it matter? (Is the study relevant and impactful to the field?)

Methods and Reproducibility

9. Are the methods described clearly enough for other researchers to replicate?
10. Are the methods of statistical analysis and level of significance appropriate?

Results and Presentation

11. Could the presentation of the results be improved?
12. Do the results answer the research question?

Ethics and Appropriateness

13. If humans, human tissues, or animals are involved, was ethics approval gained, and was the study conducted ethically?
14. Are the conclusions appropriate and supported by the results?

Submitting the Review

Final Recommendations: Reviewers should select one of the following recommendations based on the evaluation of the manuscript:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal’s standards and can be accepted without significant changes.
  • Revisions Required: The manuscript is accepted in principle, but minor revisions are necessary before publication. Authors will be asked to adjust based on the reviewers' feedback.
  • Resubmit for Review: Significant revisions are needed. The manuscript must be revised and resubmitted for another round of review before a final decision can be made.
  • Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript is not suitable for this journal but may be appropriate for another. Authors are encouraged to submit the manuscript to a different journal.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s criteria for publication. This recommendation is typically made when the manuscript is outside the journal's scope or of insufficient quality.
  • See Comments: If the reviewer wishes to provide more detailed comments before making a final recommendation, they can choose this option and suggest that the editor review the comments first.

Summary of Your Evaluation:

  • Highlight the key strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
  • Provide constructive suggestions for improving the work.

Detailed Feedback:

Optionally, provide specific comments directly within the manuscript, ensuring that all annotations are anonymized. Focus comments on the scientific content, avoiding critiques of formatting or minor language issues unless they significantly affect clarity or readability.

Making Constructive Comments:

  • Respect and Professionalism: Ensure feedback is constructive, respectful, and professional.
  • Content-Focused: Criticism should be directed at the manuscript’s content and not at the authors personally.
  • Clarity and Specificity: Provide clear, unambiguous comments that explain the areas needing improvement.
  • Evidence-Based: Support any critical comments with evidence from the literature or sound reasoning.

Final Recommendation:

The final recommendation should be based on the evaluation of the manuscript, adhering to the criteria mentioned above. Reviewers should justify their recommendation with well-reasoned arguments, considering the feedback from other reviewers and the editorial board before making 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].