Reviewer Guidelines

JINEA: Journal of Innovation in Education and Learning appreciates the contribution of reviewers in maintaining scholarly quality, publication integrity, and international standards. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers through a Double-Blind Peer Review process, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation.

Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers should possess expertise relevant to the manuscript, have a strong publication record, and be free from any conflict of interest.

• Relevant domain expertise in education and learning.
• Preferably holds a doctoral degree or demonstrates an established research/publication track record.
• Complete independence from the authors and absence of conflicts of interest.
• Firm commitment to research integrity and publication ethics.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based reviews to help authors improve their work.
• Critically evaluate originality, novelty, scientific significance, methodology, data analysis, discussion, conclusions, and references.
• Assess the manuscript's alignment with the journal's focus and scope.
• Respect strict confidentiality throughout the review process.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following standard criteria:

• Originality & Novelty: Innovation of research ideas, concepts, or empirical findings.
• Scientific Significance: Contribution toward advancing knowledge in education and learning.
• Relevance: Suitability of the topic to the journal's aims and scope.
• Methodological Rigor: Appropriateness and soundness of research design, tools, and analytical methods.
• Data Analysis & Interpretation: Accuracy, clarity, and depth of data analysis and presentation.
• Discussion Quality & Conclusions: Logical reasoning, critical discussion, and well-supported conclusions.
• References: Adequacy, relevance, and currency of cited scholarly literature.
• Language & Presentation: Academic clarity, organization, and readability.
• Ethical Compliance: Adherence to research ethics, human subject protection, and institutional standards.

Review Feedback

Reviewers are expected to provide professional and constructive feedback in two categories:

1. Comments for the Author: Suggestions and recommendations to improve the manuscript.
2. Comments for the Editor: Confidential evaluation including publication recommendations.

Review Recommendations

Reviewers should recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

• Accept: Suitable for publication without further modifications.
• Minor Revision: Requires small conceptual, structural, or formatting revisions.
• Major Revision: Requires substantial revisions and re-evaluation.
• Reject: Unsuited for publication due to major flaws or scope mismatch.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI Policy)

• Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts to generative AI systems or other third-party services.
• AI tools must not replace the reviewer's own scholarly judgment or critical evaluation.

Confidentiality & Ethics

• Do not disclose manuscript content to others.
• Do not use unpublished information for personal or third-party benefit.
• Destroy or delete manuscript files after completing the review when appropriate.

Research Misconduct

• Reviewers should immediately notify the Editor if plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, falsified images, or other publication ethics violations are suspected.
• Conduct reviews fairly, professionally, and without discrimination.

Conflict of Interest

• Reviewers must declare any financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal conflict of interest.
• If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation immediately.

Review Timeline

• Initial Editorial Screening: 5 days
• Peer Review: 14 days
• Author Revision: 7 days
• Final Editorial Decision: 3 days
• Production and Publication: 6 days
• Total Average Processing Time: 35 days

Reviewer Recognition

The journal may publish an annual acknowledgment of reviewers while maintaining reviewer anonymity for individual manuscripts.