Reviewers Guidelines

 
CONFIDENTIALITY  •  OBJECTIVITY  •  FAIRNESS  •  SCHOLARLY INTEGRITY

Reviewers Guidelines

 
Teacher Education
International Journal of Pedagogical Research

Guidance for Fair, Confidential, Constructive and Academically Rigorous Peer Review

ROLE OF PEER REVIEWERS

Supporting Quality in Teacher Education Research

Teacher Education International Journal of Pedagogical Research recognises peer reviewers as essential contributors to the quality, credibility and integrity of scholarly publication. Reviewers assist the editorial team in evaluating the originality, academic relevance, methodological soundness, clarity, ethical integrity and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts.

Because TEIJPR is primarily focused on teacher education, reviewers are expected to consider not only the general academic quality of a manuscript but also its contribution to teacher preparation, teacher professional development, pedagogical research, teaching-learning processes or emerging and future-oriented educational practice where relevant.

Peer review should be conducted objectively, respectfully, confidentially and independently. Reviewer recommendations are intended to support editorial decision-making and to help authors strengthen their scholarly work; the final publication decision remains an editorial responsibility.

CORE REVIEW PRINCIPLES

Principles of Responsible Peer Review

1
Confidentiality
2
Objectivity
3
Independence
4
Constructive Review
01   ACCEPTING A REVIEW ASSIGNMENT

Review Only within Appropriate Expertise

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should determine whether the manuscript falls sufficiently within their academic, methodological or professional expertise to permit a fair and informed evaluation.

A reviewer should decline the assignment where the subject is substantially outside their competence, where a significant conflict of interest exists or where they cannot reasonably provide a careful scholarly assessment.

Where a manuscript is interdisciplinary, reviewers should evaluate the areas within their expertise and may indicate clearly where specialised evaluation outside that expertise may be required.

02   CONFIDENTIALITY

Protecting Unpublished Scholarly Work

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers should not disclose, distribute, reproduce or discuss manuscript content with unauthorised individuals.

Unpublished ideas, methods, results, arguments, teaching models, instruments, data or other information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal academic advantage, competitive benefit, commercial purposes or another unauthorised activity.

Confidentiality continues after the review has been completed regardless of whether the manuscript is accepted, revised, withdrawn or rejected.

03. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any financial, professional, academic, institutional, personal, collaborative or competitive relationship that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the impartiality of their review.

Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should normally decline the assignment or inform the editorial office so that the responsible editor can determine whether an alternative reviewer is appropriate.

A reviewer should not allow personal relationships, ideological disagreements, institutional competition or previous academic disputes to influence evaluation of the manuscript.

04   OBJECTIVITY AND FAIRNESS

Evaluate the Scholarship, Not the Author

Reviewer judgement should be based upon the academic quality, originality, relevance, methodology, analysis, clarity, evidence and contribution of the manuscript.

Reviews should not be influenced by assumptions concerning an author's nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, academic position, geographical location, professional status, personal background or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly quality of the work.

Personal criticism, insulting language, discriminatory comments, ridicule or unsupported allegations concerning authors are unacceptable.

05   RELEVANCE TO TEIJPR

Teacher Education Should Remain the Connecting Thread

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript demonstrates an appropriate relationship with the scholarly identity of TEIJPR, particularly teacher education, teacher preparation, teacher professional development, pedagogy, teaching-learning processes or emerging and future-oriented approaches to education.

Research relating to artificial intelligence, educational technology, psychology, higher education, policy, curriculum, assessment, sustainability or other connected areas should normally demonstrate a meaningful educational or pedagogical contribution consistent with the journal's scope.

Reviewers should distinguish between a topic that is merely educational in a general sense and one that makes a substantive contribution to the teacher-education and pedagogical scholarship represented by TEIJPR.

MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION

06. Principal Review Criteria

Originality

Does the manuscript provide a meaningful original contribution, new evidence, interpretation, model, analysis or pedagogical insight?

Relevance

Is the research question significant and sufficiently aligned with teacher education, pedagogy or an appropriate related educational field?

Literature

Does the manuscript engage appropriately with relevant scholarship and establish a clear academic context?

Objectives

Are the objectives, research questions or hypotheses clearly formulated and logically connected with the study?

Methodology

Is the chosen research design appropriate, sufficiently explained and capable of addressing the stated research question?

Evidence & Data

Are data, sources, instruments or other forms of evidence appropriate and adequately described?

Analysis

Are analytical procedures appropriate, coherent and sufficiently connected with the evidence presented?

Findings

Are the findings clearly reported and supported by the research evidence or scholarly reasoning?

Discussion

Does the discussion interpret the findings meaningfully and connect them with relevant scholarship?

Conclusion

Are conclusions supported by the evidence and appropriately limited to the scope of the study?

Educational Implications

Does the work provide meaningful implications for teacher preparation, teaching practice, professional development, policy or educational research?

Presentation

Is the manuscript logically organised, academically written and sufficiently clear for scholarly communication?

07   EVALUATING RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

TEIJPR welcomes diverse forms of rigorous educational inquiry. Reviewers should evaluate methodology according to the nature of the research question and the methodological traditions appropriate to the study rather than assuming that one approach is suitable for every manuscript.

Quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, action research, experimental, case-study, systematic-review, bibliometric, design-based and other legitimate research approaches should be judged according to their own methodological requirements and the quality of their implementation.

Reviewers should consider whether the sampling, instruments, procedures, analysis and interpretation are sufficiently transparent and appropriate to support the claims made by the authors.

08   PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript advances understanding of teachers, teaching, learning or teacher preparation rather than merely reporting educational information without sufficient interpretation.

Where appropriate, reviewers may examine whether findings offer meaningful implications for teacher educators, teachers, teacher-education institutions, curriculum developers, educational leaders or policymakers.

Practical implications should be supported by the evidence of the study and should not extend substantially beyond what the research can reasonably justify.

09. Research Ethics and Participant Protection

Educational research frequently involves students, teachers, teacher trainees, school personnel or other human participants. Reviewers should consider whether relevant ethical requirements, informed consent, confidentiality and participant protection appear to have been appropriately addressed.

Particular attention may be necessary where research involves children, vulnerable participants, sensitive personal information or identifiable educational records.

Where ethical approval or consent would normally be expected but adequate information is not provided, reviewers should identify the issue for editorial consideration rather than independently assuming misconduct.

10   PLAGIARISM AND PUBLICATION INTEGRITY

If a reviewer identifies substantial unattributed overlap, suspicious duplication, inappropriate paraphrasing, possible fabricated data, duplicate publication, citation manipulation or another significant integrity concern, the matter should be reported confidentially to the responsible editor.

Reviewers should provide sufficient information to enable editorial examination, such as identifying the relevant section or potential source where reasonably possible.

A concern or suspicion should not automatically be presented as proven misconduct. Determination of plagiarism or other publication malpractice remains subject to appropriate editorial assessment and evidence.

11   REFERENCES AND CITATION ETHICS

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript appropriately acknowledges relevant scholarship and whether important claims appear to be adequately supported.

Suggestions for additional references should be academically relevant and necessary for improving the manuscript. Reviewers should not request unnecessary citation of their own work, the journal's publications or unrelated sources merely to increase citation counts.

Where a reviewer suspects that references are fabricated, inaccurate or do not support the claims for which they are cited, the concern should be communicated to the editor.

12. Constructive and Respectful Feedback

A strong reviewer report should explain both the strengths and limitations of the manuscript. Criticism should be specific, evidence-based and directed toward improving the scholarly quality of the work.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions. Major methodological, conceptual or ethical concerns should be clearly identified so that the editor and authors can understand their significance.

Comments should be written in professional academic language. The objective of peer review is critical scholarly evaluation, not personal judgement of the authors.

SUGGESTED REVIEW STRUCTURE

How to Structure a Helpful Review Report

1. Overall Assessment

Briefly explain the manuscript's purpose, relevance and overall scholarly quality.

2. Major Comments

Identify substantive issues relating to originality, theory, research design, methodology, analysis, findings or conclusions.

3. Minor Comments

Identify specific improvements concerning clarity, organisation, terminology, presentation or minor academic issues.

4. Recommendation

Provide an overall recommendation consistent with the issues identified in the review report.

13   ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND PEER REVIEW

Human Scholarly Judgement Is Essential

Peer review requires independent human scholarly expertise and judgement. Artificial-intelligence systems must not replace the reviewer in evaluating the validity, originality, significance or academic quality of a manuscript.

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished research data or identifiable manuscript material to public or external generative-AI platforms where confidentiality, privacy, data security or retention conditions cannot be appropriately assured.

Where any permitted technical tool is used to assist a reviewer, the reviewer remains fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, reasoning and scholarly judgement contained in the final review report.

14   REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may provide an appropriate recommendation to assist editorial decision-making. The recommendation should correspond with the substantive comments provided in the review report.

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The responsible editor considers the manuscript, reviewer comments, author responses and relevant journal policies before making the final editorial decision.

15. Reviewing a Revised Manuscript

When a revised manuscript is returned for further review, reviewers should examine whether the authors have adequately addressed the major issues raised during the previous evaluation.

Authors may reasonably disagree with particular suggestions if they provide a scholarly explanation. Reviewers should evaluate the quality of that explanation rather than expecting every recommendation to be adopted automatically.

New criticisms during a subsequent review should generally be limited to issues arising from the revision or important concerns that materially affect the reliability or scholarly quality of the manuscript.

16   REVIEWER IDENTITY AND ANONYMITY

Where the journal uses a blinded peer-review process, reviewers should preserve the anonymity required by that process and avoid inserting identifying information into comments intended for authors.

Reviewers should also avoid deliberately attempting to identify authors when author identities have been concealed for purposes of impartial peer review.

Any communication concerning the manuscript should normally take place through the journal's editorial system or authorised editorial office rather than through direct contact with the authors.

17   REPORTING ETHICAL CONCERNS

Reviewers should confidentially inform the editor where they identify a substantial concern involving possible plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, unethical participant treatment, undisclosed conflicts of interest or other serious publication-integrity issues.

Reviewers should describe the concern objectively and provide relevant supporting information where available. They should not independently investigate authors through inappropriate means or publicly disclose allegations.

An allegation does not constitute proof of misconduct. Investigation and any subsequent editorial action should be based upon appropriate evidence and fair consideration of relevant explanations.

18. Timely and Responsible Review

Reviewers who accept an assignment should make a reasonable effort to complete the review within the period communicated by the journal. Timely peer review supports authors, editors and the efficient operation of scholarly publishing.

If circumstances arise that prevent completion of the review, the reviewer should inform the editorial office as soon as reasonably possible so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

REVIEWER ETHICS

Practices Reviewers Should Avoid

✓ Do not disclose or circulate confidential manuscript material.

✓ Do not use unpublished ideas or data for personal advantage.

✓ Do not accept a review where a significant conflict compromises impartiality.

✓ Do not make personal, insulting or discriminatory comments about authors.

✓ Do not demand irrelevant citations or manipulate references for citation advantage.

✓ Do not present personal methodological preferences as universal requirements when other legitimate approaches are appropriate.

✓ Do not upload confidential manuscripts to public AI systems without adequate confidentiality safeguards.

✓ Do not treat suspicion of misconduct as established proof.

REVIEWER CHECKLIST

Before Submitting Your Review

✓ I have evaluated the manuscript within the limits of my academic expertise.

✓ I have maintained manuscript confidentiality.

✓ I have disclosed any relevant conflict of interest.

✓ My comments focus on scholarly content rather than personal characteristics of the authors.

✓ I have assessed originality, relevance, methodology, findings and scholarly contribution.

✓ I have considered the manuscript's relevance to teacher education and pedagogical research.

✓ My major concerns are clearly distinguished from minor suggestions.

✓ Any ethical or publication-integrity concerns have been communicated responsibly.

✓ My reference suggestions are academically relevant and not intended for citation manipulation.

✓ My recommendation is consistent with the reasoning provided in the review report.

✦

Critical Evaluation with Constructive Purpose

 

A rigorous review need not be uncritical, but criticism should serve a scholarly purpose. Reviewers are encouraged to identify significant weaknesses clearly while also recognising valid contributions and suggesting practical ways in which the manuscript may be improved.

For TEIJPR, responsible peer review should ultimately contribute to stronger scholarship in teacher education, better understanding of pedagogical practice and more reliable knowledge concerning the preparation and professional development of teachers.

✓

Fair Review. Constructive Dialogue. Stronger Teacher Education Research.

 

Teacher Education International Journal of Pedagogical Research (TEIJPR) values reviewers who contribute their expertise with independence, confidentiality, fairness and professional responsibility. Through rigorous and constructive peer review, the journal seeks to strengthen research on teacher preparation, teaching-learning, professional development, pedagogical innovation and future-ready education.

 
Teacher Education
International Journal of Pedagogical Research
TEIJPR
CONFIDENTIALITY  •  OBJECTIVITY  •  CONSTRUCTIVE REVIEW  •  SCHOLARLY INTEGRITY