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. Every manuscript is evaluated through a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. 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 of their manuscripts.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Evaluate the originality, novelty, scientific merit, and educational significance of the manuscript.
• Assess whether the manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope.
• Review the appropriateness of the research methodology, analysis, and conclusions.
• Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based recommendations.
• Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
• Declare any conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation.
• Complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Review Criteria

• Originality and Novelty: Contribution of new knowledge or educational innovation.
• Relevance: Alignment with mathematics education and learning.
• Methodological Rigor: Sound research design, data collection, and analysis.
• Scientific Contribution: Contribution to theory, practice, curriculum, or educational technology.
• Educational Significance: Practical implications for mathematics teaching and learning.
• References: Adequacy, quality, and currency of cited literature.
• Presentation Quality: Organization, clarity, academic writing, tables, and figures.

Review Recommendations

1. Accept Submission
2. Revisions Required
3. Resubmit for Review
4. Decline Submission

Review Feedback

Reviewers should provide respectful, constructive, and evidence-based comments. Feedback should identify strengths, weaknesses, and specific recommendations without personal criticism.

• Comments for Authors: Suggestions to improve the manuscript.
• Comments for Editors: Confidential comments and publication recommendation.

Review Timeline

Reviewers are encouraged to respond within 7 days and complete the review within 14–21 days. Any conflict of interest or inability to review should be communicated promptly to the Editorial Office.

Reviewer Ethics

• Follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
• Maintain confidentiality of manuscript information.
• Provide fair, impartial, and professional evaluations.
• Avoid discrimination of any kind.
• Report plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, or other ethical concerns.