Reviewer Guidelines

1. Purpose of Peer Review

As a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, JTPLE relies on independent, constructive, and rigorous evaluation to ensure that published articles:

• Advance understanding of transformative pedagogies and meaningful learner engagement
• Are theoretically sound, methodologically robust, and ethically responsible
• Contribute meaningfully to equity, inclusion, social justice, sustainability, and educational innovation
• Are clearly written, logically structured, and accessible to an international, interdisciplinary readership

Your role is to provide an objective, expert assessment that supports editorial decisions and helps authors strengthen their work.

2. Confidentiality

• Treat all manuscripts as strictly confidential documents.
• Do not discuss the manuscript, its content, or your review with anyone outside the editorial team.
• Do not use ideas, data, arguments, or findings from the manuscript for your own research or publications until it is published.
• Do not retain, copy, or share the manuscript after completing your review.

3. Conflicts of Interest

Inform the editorial office immediately if you have any potential conflict of interest, such as:

• Recent or ongoing collaboration with any author
• Same institution or department as any author
• Personal or professional relationship with any author
• Direct competition with the research
• Financial or other interests related to the topic

Even perceived conflicts should be declared. Contact the handling editor if unsure.

4. Criteria for Evaluation

Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on the following dimensions:

A. Relevance and Fit

• Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
• Meaningful contribution to the field

B. Originality and Significance

• Originality and innovation of the work
• New insights, perspectives, theoretical advancements, or practical implications
• Importance in advancing transformative education

C. Theoretical and Conceptual Strength

• Appropriate, well-developed, and clearly articulated framework
• Critical engagement with transformative learning concepts

D. Methodology / Research Design

• Rigorous, transparent, and appropriate methodology
• For empirical work: clear description of methods, sampling, data collection, and analysis
• For theoretical work: logical, coherent, and well-supported argumentation

E. Ethical Soundness

• Demonstrates ethical awareness (e.g., participant protection, positionality, power dynamics)
• Responsibly addresses equity, inclusion, and social justice

F. Clarity, Structure, and Presentation

• Clear, concise, well-organized, and accessible writing
• Logical argument development with smooth transitions
• Appropriate and clear tables, figures, and supplementary materials

G. Potential Impact

• Potential to influence educational practice, policy, teacher education, or further research

5. Reviewer Recommendation

• Accept – Ready for publication (minor copy-editing only)
• Minor revisions – Requires small changes; likely to be accepted after revision
• Major revisions – Requires substantial work; resubmission will be re-reviewed
• Reject – Not suitable for publication; provide clear reasons

6. Tone and Constructive Feedback

• Be polite, professional, and respectful at all times
• Focus on the work, not the authors
• Provide specific, actionable feedback (reference sections, suggest readings, highlight missing elements)
• Balance criticism with recognition of strengths
• Avoid personal, derogatory, or discriminatory language

7. Timeline

• Reviews are normally expected within 3–4 weeks
• If you need more time or cannot complete the review, inform the editorial office promptly
• Timely reviews support the journal’s goal of first decisions within 8–12 weeks

8. Recognition and Support

• Reviewer contributions are acknowledged annually on the journal website (unless anonymity is preferred)
• Participation in reviewer recognition platforms (e.g., Publons / ReviewerCredits) where available
• Reviewer certificates available upon request from the editorial office

9. Ethical Guidelines

Reviewers should follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Thank you for your essential contribution to scholarly quality and the advancement of transformative education worldwide. If you have any questions during the review process, please contact the editorial office via the journal platform.