Reviewer Guidelines

1. Purpose of Peer Review

As a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, Advances in Educational Studies and Inclusive Practices (AESIP) relies on independent, objective, and constructive peer review to ensure that published articles:

• Contribute original and meaningful knowledge to educational studies and inclusive practices.
• Demonstrate theoretical rigor, methodological soundness, and ethical research practices.
• Advance understanding of educational policy, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, educational technology, psychology, leadership, and inclusive education.
• Promote educational equity, diversity, accessibility, innovation, and quality in alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education).
• Are clearly written, logically organized, and relevant to an international and interdisciplinary audience.

Your role is to provide a fair, objective, and evidence-based evaluation that supports editorial decision-making while helping authors improve the quality and impact of their manuscripts.

2. Confidentiality

• Treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents.
• Do not disclose, discuss, or share any part of the manuscript or review with anyone outside the editorial process.
• Do not use unpublished ideas, data, methods, or findings contained in the manuscript for personal research or publication.
• Delete or destroy manuscript files after completing the review unless instructed otherwise by the editorial office.

3. Conflicts of Interest

Please notify the editorial office immediately if you have any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest, including but not limited to:

• Recent or ongoing collaboration with any of the authors.
• Affiliation with the same institution or department as any author.
• Personal, academic, or professional relationships that may influence your judgment.
• Direct academic competition with the submitted research.
• Financial, institutional, or other interests related to the manuscript.

If you are uncertain whether a conflict exists, please consult the handling editor before accepting or completing the review.

4. Criteria for Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts using the following criteria:

A. Relevance and Scope

• Alignment with the aims and scope of the journal.
• Relevance to educational studies, inclusive education, or related disciplines.
• Contribution to current educational research and practice.

B. Originality and Significance

• Originality and novelty of the research.
• Contribution to existing knowledge or educational practice.
• Potential academic, professional, or policy impact.

C. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation

• Comprehensive and relevant review of existing literature.
• Appropriate theoretical or conceptual framework.
• Critical engagement with current scholarship.

D. Methodology and Research Design

• Appropriateness and rigor of the research design.
• Clear description of research methods, sampling, data collection, and analysis.
• Validity, reliability, and transparency of the research process.
• For conceptual papers, coherence, logical reasoning, and scholarly support.

E. Ethical Standards

• Compliance with accepted ethical research principles.
• Appropriate protection of research participants where applicable.
• Responsible reporting of findings and appropriate acknowledgment of sources.

F. Presentation and Organization

• Clear, concise, and well-structured writing.
• Logical organization and coherent argumentation.
• Appropriate use of tables, figures, references, and supplementary materials.
• Compliance with the journal's submission guidelines.

G. Overall Contribution

• Potential to improve educational research, policy, practice, or inclusive learning environments.
• Overall scholarly quality and suitability for publication in AESIP.

5. Reviewer Recommendation

• Accept – Suitable for publication with only minor editorial or copy-editing changes.
• Minor Revisions – Requires limited revisions before acceptance.
• Major Revisions – Requires substantial revision and further peer review.
• Reject – Does not meet the journal's standards or falls outside its scope; provide clear and constructive reasons for the decision.

6. Tone and Constructive Feedback

• Provide objective, respectful, and professional comments.
• Evaluate the manuscript rather than the authors.
• Offer clear, specific, and actionable recommendations for improvement.
• Recognize the strengths of the manuscript alongside areas requiring revision.
• Avoid personal, discriminatory, or inappropriate language.

7. Timeline

• Reviews are normally expected within 3–4 weeks of accepting the invitation.
• If additional time is required or you are unable to complete the review, please notify the editorial office as soon as possible.
• Timely reviews help the journal maintain an efficient and high-quality editorial process.

8. Recognition and Support

• Reviewer contributions may be acknowledged annually on the journal website, subject to reviewer preference and confidentiality.
• Participation in reviewer recognition services (such as Publons or ReviewerCredits) may be supported where applicable.
• Certificates of reviewing are available upon request following completion of the review.

9. Ethical Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, confidentiality, impartiality, and professionalism throughout the review process.

We sincerely appreciate your valuable contribution to maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of Advances in Educational Studies and Inclusive Practices (AESIP). Your expertise plays a vital role in advancing educational research and promoting inclusive, equitable, and high-quality educational practices worldwide. If you have any questions during the review process, please contact the editorial office through the journal's online submission system.