Reviewer Guidance

The Journal of Innovative Technologies in Learning and Education (J-ITLE) appreciates the contribution of reviewers in maintaining the quality, integrity, and scholarly standards of the journal. Reviewers provide independent and constructive assessments that help editors make fair editorial decisions and help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

This guidance explains the responsibilities of reviewers, evaluation criteria, ethical expectations, confidentiality requirements, competing interests policy, and reviewer recommendations used in the J-ITLE peer-review process.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts according to their academic expertise, professional experience, and relevance to the manuscript topic. Reviewers support the editorial team by assessing the originality, quality, clarity, methodology, ethical compliance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor, or assigned Handling Editor based on reviewer reports, manuscript quality, journal policies, ethical considerations, and editorial judgment.

2. General Principles for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to follow the principles below:

  • Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript, review report, and editorial communication as confidential documents. Do not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or use the manuscript content outside the review process.
  • Objectivity: Provide fair, balanced, evidence-based, and unbiased comments. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript, not the author.
  • Constructiveness: Provide comments that help authors improve their work. Feedback should be specific, clear, respectful, and academically useful.
  • Timeliness: Complete the review within the agreed timeframe. If unable to complete the review on time, reviewers should inform the editorial office as soon as possible.
  • Integrity: Reviewers must not use unpublished data, ideas, methods, or findings from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
  • Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests before accepting or continuing a review assignment.

3. Double-Blind Review and Reviewer Anonymity

J-ITLE applies a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to support fairness and reduce potential bias.

  • Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors.
  • Reviewers should not reveal their identity in the review comments intended for authors.
  • Reviewers should inform the editor if the manuscript contains identifying information that may compromise the double-blind review process.
  • Reviewer identities are treated confidentially and are not disclosed to authors.

4. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider whether:

  • The manuscript topic is within their area of expertise;
  • They have sufficient time to complete the review within the requested deadline;
  • They can provide an objective and constructive assessment;
  • They have no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest;
  • They can maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.

If reviewers are unable to review the manuscript, they should decline the invitation promptly so that the editor can invite another suitable reviewer.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

5.1 Originality and Contribution

  • Does the manuscript present original ideas, findings, methods, or insights?
  • Does it contribute meaningfully to educational technology, learning innovation, digital learning, or related fields?
  • Does the manuscript clearly explain its novelty and contribution?

5.2 Title and Abstract

  • Is the title clear, concise, accurate, and reflective of the manuscript content?
  • Does the abstract summarize the objectives, methods, key findings, and conclusions?
  • Are the keywords relevant and useful for indexing and discoverability?

5.3 Introduction and Literature Review

  • Does the introduction clearly describe the background, problem, research gap, and objectives?
  • Is the literature review relevant, current, and sufficiently comprehensive?
  • Does the manuscript identify a clear gap in previous research?
  • Are the theoretical or conceptual foundations appropriate?

5.4 Methodology

  • Is the research design appropriate for the study objectives or research questions?
  • Are the participants, setting, instruments, procedures, and data collection methods clearly described?
  • Are the data analysis techniques appropriate and clearly explained?
  • Is the method sufficiently transparent to allow replication or critical assessment?
  • Where applicable, are ethical approval, research permission, or informed consent addressed?

5.5 Results

  • Are the results presented clearly, accurately, and logically?
  • Are the findings supported by appropriate data?
  • Are tables, figures, and charts relevant, readable, numbered, and properly titled?
  • Are results separated clearly from interpretation where appropriate?

5.6 Discussion and Conclusion

  • Does the discussion interpret the results meaningfully?
  • Are the findings connected to previous studies, theories, or practical contexts?
  • Are implications for theory, practice, policy, or future research clearly explained?
  • Are the study limitations acknowledged?
  • Does the conclusion summarize the key findings and contributions without overstating the results?

5.7 References and Citation Style

  • Are the references relevant, current, and sufficient?
  • Are all cited works included in the reference list?
  • Are all references cited in the manuscript?
  • Does the manuscript follow APA 7th edition citation and reference style?

5.8 Language, Structure, and Presentation

  • Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized?
  • Is the language appropriate for an international academic audience?
  • Are there grammar, spelling, formatting, or clarity issues that should be corrected?
  • Does the manuscript follow the J-ITLE article template and author guidelines?

6. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should report any ethical concerns to the editorial office. Ethical concerns may include:

  • Plagiarism or unattributed copying;
  • Self-plagiarism or redundant publication;
  • Duplicate submission or duplicate publication;
  • Data fabrication or data falsification;
  • Image, figure, table, or data manipulation;
  • Inappropriate authorship, ghost authorship, guest authorship, or gift authorship;
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • Citation manipulation;
  • Peer-review manipulation;
  • Lack of ethical approval, research permission, or informed consent where required;
  • Misuse of personal data or sensitive information.

Reviewers should not investigate suspected misconduct independently or contact the authors directly. All ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantial revisions required.
  • Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor or moderate revisions before it can be considered for acceptance.
  • Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires major revisions and further review before a decision can be made.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in J-ITLE.

Reviewers should provide clear reasons for their recommendation. The recommendation should be consistent with the comments provided in the review report.

8. Providing Constructive Feedback

Reviewer comments should be clear, specific, respectful, and useful for both authors and editors.

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their feedback as follows:

  • Summary of the manuscript: Briefly describe the purpose and main contribution of the manuscript.
  • Strengths: Identify the main strengths of the manuscript.
  • Major comments: Discuss important issues related to originality, theory, methodology, data analysis, results, discussion, ethics, or contribution.
  • Minor comments: Provide comments on clarity, formatting, references, tables, figures, grammar, or presentation.
  • Recommendation: State the recommended editorial decision and provide justification.

Reviewers should avoid offensive, dismissive, discriminatory, or personal comments. Comments should focus on the manuscript and be written in a professional tone.

9. Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor when necessary. These comments may include concerns about ethical issues, suspected misconduct, conflicts of interest, manuscript suitability, or other matters that should not be shared directly with the authors.

Comments intended only for the editor should not contradict the main comments given to the authors unless there is a clear ethical or confidential reason.

10. Competing Interests Policy

Competing interests, also known as conflicts of interest, occur when personal, financial, institutional, academic, or professional relationships may affect, or may reasonably be perceived to affect, a person’s objectivity in the publication process.

Competing interests may include:

  • Financial interests: Employment, consultancy, funding, grants, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patents, royalties, stocks, shares, or other financial benefits.
  • Personal interests: Family relationships, close friendships, personal disputes, or other personal connections with the authors or institutions involved.
  • Professional interests: Recent collaboration, academic competition, supervisory relationships, institutional affiliation, advisory roles, or membership in organizations that may benefit from the publication outcome.
  • Intellectual interests: Strong personal, theoretical, methodological, ideological, or professional commitments that may prevent objective evaluation.

11. Disclosure by Reviewers

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests before accepting a review assignment or as soon as they become aware of such interests.

Reviewers should decline the review invitation if:

  • They have a close personal or professional relationship with the authors;
  • They have collaborated with the authors recently;
  • They are from the same institution as the authors;
  • They have a financial or professional interest in the manuscript outcome;
  • They cannot provide an impartial review.

If uncertain whether a situation constitutes a competing interest, reviewers should contact the editor for guidance.

12. Disclosure by Authors

Authors must disclose any competing interests when submitting a manuscript. This may include funding sources, financial relationships, institutional affiliations, personal relationships, or other circumstances that may influence the research or its interpretation.

A competing interests statement should be included in the manuscript. If there are no competing interests, authors should state:

The authors declare no competing interests.

13. Disclosure by Editors

Editors must disclose any competing interests that may affect their handling of a manuscript. If an editor has a conflict of interest, they must recuse themselves from the manuscript and assign it to another qualified editor.

14. Management of Competing Interests

J-ITLE manages competing interests to protect the integrity and fairness of the publication process. Depending on the situation, the editorial team may:

  • Assign the manuscript to another editor;
  • Invite different reviewers;
  • Request additional independent reviews;
  • Ask authors, reviewers, or editors for clarification;
  • Publish a competing interests statement with the article when appropriate;
  • Take corrective action if non-disclosure is discovered after publication.

15. Consequences of Non-Disclosure

Failure to disclose competing interests may result in editorial action, including rejection of the manuscript, correction of the published record, expression of concern, retraction, restriction of future submissions, or other corrective actions as deemed necessary by the editorial team.

16. Reviewer Recognition

J-ITLE values the voluntary contribution of reviewers. The journal may acknowledge reviewer contributions through reviewer certificates, public reviewer acknowledgement pages, or annual acknowledgements, while maintaining the confidentiality of individual manuscript reviews and reviewer identities.

17. Related Policies

Reviewers are encouraged to read the following related journal policies:

18. Contact

For questions regarding reviewer guidance, review assignments, competing interests, ethical concerns, or reviewer records, please contact:

Journal of Innovative Technologies in Learning and Education (J-ITLE)
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Universitas Citra Bangsa, Indonesia
Email: edu@ucb.ac.id