Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

1. Role and Responsibility of the Reviewer

A reviewer is an independent expert who provides a professional, objective, and unbiased evaluation of a scholarly manuscript in order to:

  • ensure high scientific quality of publications;
  • uphold the principles of academic integrity;
  • contribute to the development of scholarly communication in the fields of education, innovation, and leadership.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process.

2. Acceptance or Decline of Review Invitation

A reviewer may accept an invitation to review only if they:

  • possess sufficient expertise in the subject area of the manuscript;
  • have no conflict of interest (institutional, financial, or personal);
  • are able to provide the review within the timeframe specified by the editorial board.

If a conflict of interest exists or the reviewer is unable to complete the review, they must inform the editorial board promptly.

3. Principles of Peer Review

Reviewers must adhere to the following principles:

  • confidentiality (the manuscript is the intellectual property of the author);
  • impartiality;
  • reasoned and evidence-based comments;
  • constructiveness (feedback aimed at improving the manuscript);
  • professional and respectful language.

It is prohibited to:

  • use ideas, data, or interpretations from the manuscript prior to publication;
  • share the manuscript with third parties;
  • make judgments about the author rather than the content of the work.

4. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

  1. Scientific significance and contribution
    • relevance of the topic to contemporary educational research;
    • clarity of the research problem;
    • level of scientific novelty;
    • contribution to the development of theory, methodology, or educational practice.
  2. Theoretical grounding
    • relevance and timeliness of the sources used;
    • integration of the study into the international scholarly context;
    • conceptual clarity and coherence of the theoretical framework.
  3. Methodological quality
    • alignment of methods with research aims and questions;
    • adequacy of description of the sample and procedures;
    • validity and reliability of instruments;
    • appropriateness of data analysis methods.
  4. Quality of analysis and interpretation
    • depth of analytical work;
    • soundness of conclusions;
    • consistency of results with previous research;
    • identification of study limitations.
  5. Structural and academic quality of the text
    • logical organization;
    • coherence of argumentation;
    • academic writing style;
    • accuracy of citations and references.
  6. Ethical compliance
    • adherence to publication ethics and research integrity standards.

5. Formulation of Comments

Reviewers are encouraged to:

  • clearly distinguish between major and minor comments;
  • formulate recommendations as specific and actionable suggestions;
  • indicate, where possible, the specific sections or passages of the manuscript to which comments refer.

6. Final Recommendation

The reviewer should select one of the following recommendations:

✔ Accept without revisions
✔ Accept with minor revisions
✔ Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
✖ Reject

All recommendations must be clearly justified.

7. Reviewer Responsibility

The reviewer is responsible for:

  • the integrity and professionalism of the review;
  • adherence to deadlines;
  • compliance with confidentiality and ethical principles.