Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Learning and Educational Policy (JLEP) relies on the expertise and judgment of our reviewer community to maintain the quality of published research. We are grateful to all reviewers who contribute their time and expertise to the peer review process.

The Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers provide expert, independent assessments of submitted manuscripts to help the Editor-in-Chief make informed publication decisions. Reviewers advise on:

  • Scientific and methodological rigor
  • Significance and originality of the contribution
  • Clarity and quality of writing
  • Appropriateness for JLEP's scope

Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

When you receive a review invitation, please respond within 5 days to accept or decline. If you are unable to review the manuscript, we would appreciate a suggested alternative reviewer with relevant expertise.

Please decline if:

  • You have a conflict of interest with the authors or their institution
  • The manuscript falls outside your area of expertise
  • You cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe (typically 3-4 weeks)

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are strictly confidential. You must not:

  • Share the manuscript with anyone else without prior permission from the editor
  • Use unpublished data or ideas from the manuscript in your own work
  • Contact the authors directly without editor permission

The identities of reviewers remain anonymous to authors throughout and after the review process (double-blind peer review).

Reviewing Process

What to Evaluate

Please provide comments on each of the following:

  • Originality: Is the work sufficiently novel? Does it make a meaningful contribution to the field?
  • Methodology: Are the research design, methods, and analysis appropriate and rigorous?
  • Literature: Is the relevant literature adequately reviewed and cited?
  • Presentation: Is the manuscript clearly written, well-structured, and logically organised?
  • Ethics: Are there any concerns about research ethics, data fabrication, or plagiarism?
  • References: Are citations complete, accurate, and appropriately used?

Tone and Constructiveness

Reviews should be professional, objective, and constructive. Comments should be evidence-based and should aim to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

Recommendation Options

At the end of your review, you will be asked to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept as is
  • Minor revisions required
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject (with reasons)
  • Refer to another journal (optional comment)

Timeline

We ask reviewers to complete their review within 3-4 weeks of accepting the invitation. If you need additional time, please contact the editorial office immediately.

Conflict of Interest

You must declare any conflict of interest before or during the review process. Conflicts include:

  • Personal or professional relationships with the authors
  • Financial interest in the research outcomes
  • Prior access to the work as a collaborator or colleague

Recognition

JLEP recognises the contribution of our reviewer community. Reviewer names may be acknowledged annually (with permission), and reviewers may request an official certificate of peer review participation.

COPE Guidelines

All reviewers are expected to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, available at: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines