Guide for reviewers

The Bulletin of Education and Psychology is committed to ensuring the highest quality of scholarship in the field of education and psychology. As part of our peer-review process, reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and scholarly rigor of the work we publish. We deeply appreciate your expertise and contributions in helping to assess the quality, relevance, and originality of the submissions to our journal.

Review Process Overview

Each submitted manuscript undergoes a thorough, double-blind peer-review process, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. As a reviewer, your primary responsibility is to evaluate the manuscript’s scientific merit, relevance to the field, and overall contribution to advancing knowledge in education and psychology.

The review process is essential in ensuring that only high-quality research is published. Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following key criteria:

Originality and Significance

1. • Does the manuscript contribute new insights or knowledge to the field of education and psychology?
   • Is the research innovative, and does it address an important gap or unresolved issue in the field?

Clarity and Structure

1. • Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured?
   • Are the arguments and findings presented in a coherent and concise manner?

Methodology

1. • Are the research methods appropriate for the research question?
   • Is the methodology robust and well-explained, allowing for reproducibility and transparency?
   • Are there any flaws or limitations in the methodology that should be addressed?

Results and Interpretation

1. • Are the results presented clearly and in a way that is accessible to readers?
   • Are the findings discussed in the context of existing literature, and do the conclusions align with the results?

Relevance to the Field

1. • Does the manuscript address issues of current importance in education and psychology?
   • Is the manuscript likely to make a meaningful contribution to both scholarly understanding and practical application?

Ethical Considerations

• • Are ethical standards adhered to, particularly regarding human subjects, data collection, and research integrity?
  • Is there adequate informed consent, and are the study’s findings presented transparently?

 Providing Constructive Feedback

In addition to assessing the manuscript’s academic quality, reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback. Your comments should be specific, actionable, and focused on improving the manuscript. Here are some guidelines for providing helpful feedback:

• Be Respectful: Reviewers should offer feedback in a professional and respectful manner. Remember that the goal is to help authors improve their work, not to criticize them personally.
• Be Specific: Vague comments like “The paper is not clear” are less helpful. Instead, point out specific areas where clarity can be improved, such as suggesting alternative phrasing or providing further clarification for complex concepts.
• Be Balanced: Highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Acknowledge the contributions the authors have made while offering suggestions for improvement.
• Be Objective: Keep in mind that your review should be based on the content of the manuscript and not on personal preferences or biases. Evaluate the paper based on scientific rigor and academic merit.

 Confidentiality

As a reviewer, you are entrusted with confidential information. Please do not share the manuscript or its contents with others. Any discussion of the manuscript outside of the peer-review process is strictly prohibited. If you feel unqualified to review the manuscript or if there are any conflicts of interest, please inform the editorial team immediately.

 Timeliness and Professionalism

We appreciate your timely submission of the review. The peer-review process is an essential part of the scholarly publishing cycle, and delays can disrupt the workflow of both authors and editors. We ask reviewers to complete their assessments within the timeframe specified by the editorial team. If you are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the editorial office as soon as possible.