Reviewer Guidelines

Innovations in Pedagogy and Technology (IPT) appreciates the valuable contributions of reviewers in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, and relevance of the journal. Peer review plays an essential role in evaluating submitted manuscripts and supporting authors in improving their work.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, timely, and confidential assessments to assist the editorial team in making informed editorial decisions.

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to follow the principles and responsibilities outlined in these guidelines.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

- Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and independently, based on their academic merit.

- Provide constructive comments that help authors improve the quality and clarity of their manuscripts.

- Identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately acknowledged.

- Assess the originality, methodology, academic contribution, and relevance of the manuscript.

- Maintain the confidentiality of all manuscript materials and information obtained during the review process.

- Disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting or completing a review.

- Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or promptly inform the editorial office if an extension is needed.

- Refrain from using unpublished information or ideas obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

2. Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when:

- The manuscript falls within their area of academic expertise.

- They have sufficient time to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

- They have no actual or potential conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

If a reviewer does not have the appropriate expertise, is unable to complete the review on time, or identifies a potential conflict of interest, they should decline the invitation and, where possible, recommend alternative qualified reviewers.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to assess manuscripts according to the following criteria, as applicable to the article type and research design:

Originality and Contribution

- Does the manuscript address a relevant research question or educational issue?

- Does it provide original findings, insights, or perspectives?

- Does it make a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge in education, pedagogy, or educational technology?

Relevance and Significance

- Is the manuscript consistent with the aims and scope of IPT?

- Is the research topic relevant to the journal's readership?

- Are the findings or discussions of potential academic or practical significance?

Methodological Quality

- Are the research design, methods, and procedures appropriate for the research objectives?

- Are the data collection and analysis methods adequately described and justified?

- Are the findings supported by sufficient evidence?

- Are the limitations of the study appropriately acknowledged?

Presentation and Organization

- Is the manuscript clearly structured and logically organized?

- Is the academic writing clear and understandable?

- Are tables, figures, and references appropriate and accurately presented?

Ethical Considerations

- Are relevant research ethics requirements addressed?

- Are potential ethical concerns, conflicts of interest, or issues involving research integrity identified and appropriately reported?

Reviewers should consider the nature of the manuscript and avoid applying inappropriate methodological expectations to different types of scholarly contributions, such as theoretical papers, reviews, and empirical studies.

4. Preparing the Review Report

A review report should be clear, professional, evidence-based, and constructive.

Reviewers are encouraged to:

- Begin with a brief summary of the manuscript and its main contribution.

- Identify the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses.

- Provide specific comments on issues that require clarification, correction, or further analysis.

- Distinguish between major concerns affecting the validity or contribution of the work and minor issues involving presentation or language.

- Provide recommendations that are relevant and feasible for the authors to address.

Comments should focus on the manuscript rather than the authors personally. Disrespectful, discriminatory, or unnecessarily critical language is not acceptable.

Reviewers should not request citations to their own work or to particular publications unless these references are genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

5. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

- Share, distribute, or disclose manuscript materials to unauthorized individuals.

- Discuss unpublished findings or manuscript content with others without permission from the editorial office.

- Use unpublished data, information, or ideas for their own research or professional benefit.

- Retain or reproduce manuscript materials beyond what is necessary for the review process.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or identifiable manuscript content to publicly accessible or third-party generative AI tools without prior authorization from the journal and appropriate safeguards for confidentiality.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Such conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

- Recent or ongoing collaboration with one or more authors;

- Personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships with the authors;

- Direct competition or disputes that may affect objective judgment;

- Any other circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the review.

If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should decline the invitation or promptly notify the editorial office.

7. Use of Generative AI

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and confidentiality of their review reports.

Generative AI tools must not be used in ways that compromise manuscript confidentiality or replace the reviewer's independent academic judgment. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content, unpublished data, or identifiable author information into external AI systems.

Where the journal permits the use of AI-assisted tools for limited purposes, reviewers must comply with the journal's applicable policies and remain responsible for all submitted comments and recommendations.

8. Review Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

- Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further substantive revision.

- Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes that do not substantially affect its overall contribution.

- Major Revision: Significant revisions are necessary before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

- Reject: The manuscript has substantial limitations or does not meet the journal's publication standards.

Review recommendations should be supported by clear academic reasoning. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the editor authorized to make the decision.

9. Ethical Concerns and Misconduct

If reviewers identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, fabricated results, inappropriate authorship practices, or other research integrity concerns, they should confidentially inform the editorial office and provide relevant explanations or evidence.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact authors about suspected misconduct unless specifically authorized by the editorial office.

10. Join Our Reviewer Team

IPT welcomes qualified researchers and academics with relevant expertise in education, pedagogy, educational technology, and related disciplines to join its reviewer community.

Researchers who are interested in becoming reviewers are invited to submit their updated academic CV to the editorial office at: ipt@niepublish.com

Please use "Reviewer Application – IPT" as the email subject line.

All applications will be reviewed by the editorial team based on academic qualifications, research expertise, and relevant scholarly experience. Submission of an application does not guarantee appointment as a reviewer.

We appreciate the interest and support of researchers who wish to contribute to the academic quality and development of IPT.