Reviewer Guidelines

SMARTH: Journal of Mathematics Education and Learning highly values the contribution of reviewers in maintaining academic quality, publication ethics, editorial integrity, and the international reputation of the journal. 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. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, timely, and evidence-based assessments that assist editors in making publication decisions and help authors improve the scientific quality and educational impact of their manuscripts.

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 mathematics education, learning theories, didactic design, curriculum development, or technology-enhanced mathematics learning.
• Preferably holds a doctoral degree or demonstrates an established research/publication track record in mathematics education or related fields.
• Complete independence from the authors and absence of any financial, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest.
• Firm commitment to research integrity, publication ethics, and constructive peer review.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Provide objective, constructive, timely, and evidence-based recommendations to help authors improve their work and assist editors in decision-making.
• Critically evaluate the originality, novelty, scientific merit, educational significance, methodology, data analysis, discussion, and conclusions of the manuscript.
• Assess whether the manuscript fits the journal's focus and scope in mathematics education.
• Maintain strict confidentiality regarding all details of the manuscript throughout and after the review process.
• Declare any conflict of interest immediately upon receiving the review invitation.
• Complete the review within the requested timeframe or notify the editorial office promptly if an extension is needed.

Review Criteria

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

• Originality & Novelty: Innovation of research ideas, concepts, pedagogical frameworks, didactic approaches, or empirical findings in mathematics education.
• Scientific & Educational Significance: Potential impact and contribution toward advancing knowledge, theory, classroom practice, curriculum, or educational technology in mathematics.
• Relevance: Direct alignment with the aims, scope, and target readership of SMARTH.
• Methodological Rigor: Soundness and appropriateness of research design, mathematical tasks, sampling, instruments, data collection, and analytical methods.
• Data Analysis & Interpretation: Accuracy, clarity, and depth of quantitative or qualitative data analysis, statistical tests, and data presentation.
• Discussion Quality & Conclusions: Logical reasoning, critical discussion contextualized with existing mathematics education literature, and well-supported conclusions.
• References: Adequacy, relevance, quality, and currency of cited scholarly literature (preferably primary sources and recent peer-reviewed journals).
• Language & Presentation: Academic writing clarity, logical organization, precise mathematical notation, readability, and high quality of tables and figures.
• Ethical Compliance: Adherence to research ethics, protection of human participants (e.g., students, teachers), and institutional approvals.

Review Feedback

Reviewers should provide respectful, professional, constructive, and evidence-based comments in two distinct categories:

1. Comments for the Author: Clear, actionable suggestions and recommendations to improve the manuscript's methodology, mathematical clarity, literature grounding, and overall presentation.
2. Comments for the Editor: Confidential evaluation detailing the manuscript's key strengths and weaknesses, along with publication recommendations.

Review Recommendations

Reviewers should recommend one of the following editorial decisions based on their evaluation:

• Accept Submission: Suitable for publication as submitted without further modifications.
• Minor Revision: Requires small conceptual, structural, mathematical notation, or formatting revisions.
• Major Revision: Requires substantial methodological, theoretical, or analytical revisions and re-evaluation.
• Decline / Reject Submission: Unsuited for publication due to major flaws, lack of originality, or scope mismatch.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI Policy)

• Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, data, or supplementary materials to generative AI systems, public LLMs, or third-party AI tools.
• AI tools must not replace the reviewer's own independent scholarly judgment, critical evaluation, or expert mathematical assessment.

Confidentiality & Ethics

• Follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers strictly.
• Do not disclose, share, or discuss manuscript content or data with unauthorized third parties.
• Do not use unpublished information, methods, or findings for personal, academic, or institutional benefit.
• Securely delete or destroy manuscript files after completing the peer review process.

Research Misconduct

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

Conflict of Interest

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

Review Timeline

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

Reviewer Recognition

The journal recognizes the invaluable work of reviewers by publishing annual reviewer acknowledgments and providing official certificates of peer review upon request, while maintaining reviewer anonymity for individual manuscripts.