Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the high academic standards of the Journal of Teaching and Education for Scholars (JOTES). When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are requested to critically assess the scientific merit, logical flow, and academic contribution based on the following detailed guidelines:

1. General Evaluation

  • Presentation & Argument: Does the paper present a cohesive argument? Are the ideas clearly and logically presented?

  • Writing Quality: Is the writing concise, academically rigorous, and easy to follow? Is it written in good English?

  • Length: Does the manuscript fall within the required 4000–8000 words limit? What portions should be expanded, condensed, or removed?

2. Title and Abstract

  • Title: Is the title concise and representative of the manuscript's main result or conclusion? It should use the "Capitalize Each Word" format and avoid unnecessary abbreviations.

  • Abstract: Does the abstract effectively encapsulate the entire study (background, aim, method, key findings, and conclusion) within the maximum limit of 250 words? Are the keywords (maximum 5) accurate?

3. Introduction & Literature Review

  • Context & Scope: Does the study align with the JOTES scope (teaching models, education, learning strategies)?

  • Problem Statement & Gap: Does the author convincingly establish the research gap and justify the novelty of the manuscript?

  • Objectives: Are the research aims clearly stated and logically derived from the problem statement?

  • Literature Review (For Research Articles): Is the study grounded in appropriate educational theories? Does the author critically synthesize recent and relevant literature rather than merely summarizing it?

4. Methods (For Research Articles)

  • Replicability: Is the method written clearly and transparently so that other researchers can replicate the study?

  • Detailing: Does the section adequately describe the research design, participants/sampling, research instruments, and data analysis techniques?

  • Appropriateness: Is the chosen methodology scientifically valid for answering the stated research questions?

5. Results and Discussion

  • Data Presentation (Results): Are the results presented logically and clearly (processed data, not raw data)? Are tables or figures accompanied by supportive, easy-to-follow descriptions?

  • Interpretation (Discussion): Does the author thoughtfully provide scientific interpretations for the findings?

  • Integration: Is the result actively compared and contrasted with what other investigators have reported in prior studies?

  • Contribution: Does the discussion clearly articulate the new academic contribution to the field of teaching and education?

  • (Note for Research Articles: Results and Discussion must be presented as separate sections using Heading 2 format).

6. Conclusion

  • Synthesis: Does the conclusion directly answer the research objectives without introducing new data?

  • Limitations (Mandatory): Does the author explicitly describe the limitations or methodological drawbacks of the research?

  • Implications (Mandatory): Are there clear implications or further recommendations for educators, policymakers, or future research?

  • Format: Is it written in a cohesive paragraph format (bullet points or numbering should be avoided)?

7. References and Citations

  • Quality: Are the cited sources scientifically credible, recent, and relevant?

  • Formatting: Are all citations and the reference list strictly formatted according to the APA 7th Edition style?

  • Tools: Is there evidence that the authors used a reference management tool (e.g., Mendeley, Zotero, EndNote) as required by JOTES?