Guidelines For Reviewers

Educational Point advises that scholars reviewing a manuscript for the journal adhere to the following recommendations.

  • Reviewers must ensure that the submitted material does not contain potential conflicts of interest. If they suspect a conflict of interest, they should immediately inform the editors and decline the invitation.
  • Reviewers should consider whether the article’s topic is compatible with the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Reviewers should evaluate whether the submitted content adheres to ethical principles.
  • Reviewers must assess the submitted article’s originality, significance, and quality, including examination of the existing literature, novelty, methodology, data, presentation, results, soundness of discussion, justification of research findings, and language usage.
  • Reviewers should be objective, constructive, transparent, and optimistic when composing their evaluation reports.

As part of our review process, we encourage reviewers to provide helpful feedback to authors on their manuscript revisions. If revisions are suggested, providing constructive analysis in the reviewer's report is essential. If there are any specific comments that reviewers do not want authors to see, they can be included in the confidential comments sent to the Editor.

In addition, there are a few key aspects that reviewers should evaluate:

  • Are there valid research questions?
  • Is the necessary ethical approval or consent in place, and was the research conducted ethically?
  • Are the methods and design of the study suitable for answering the research questions?
  • Do the experiments contain proper controls?
  • Are the methods, including all equipment and materials, detailed enough for the research to be replicated?
  • Are the statistical tests utilized valid and adequately reported?
  • Are the figures and tables legible and accurate representations of the results?
  • Have previous studies conducted by the authors and others been discussed and compared with the current results?
  • Are there incorrect citations in the authors’ articles, such as those that do not support the claim or an excessive number of sources?
  • Are the results consistent with the conclusions?
  • Are the research’s limitations acknowledged?
  • Is the abstract an accurate and objective summary of the research and findings?
  • Is the language easy to comprehend?

Reviewers’ reports should be submitted through the peer-review management system by the agreed deadline to ensure authors receive their reviews on time. If reviewers cannot meet the deadline, they should contact editor@educationalpoint.net to arrange an alternative deadline.

Our request to reviewers is to provide an objective critique of the scientific aspects of the paper, such as the validity of the methodology and the supportability of the conclusions. Following their evaluation, we ask them to suggest one of the following actions.

  • Publish without corrections
  • Publish after minor changes
  • Publish after major changes
  • Reject

However, it is essential to note that the editor makes the final decision.