Peer Reviewers Guidelines

Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly publishing and plays an essential role in maintaining the quality, integrity, originality, and academic relevance of published research. SEARCH: Science Education Research Journal recognizes peer reviewers as important contributors to the evaluation and improvement of scholarly manuscripts. These guidelines are intended to assist reviewers in conducting rigorous, fair, constructive, and timely assessments while upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on their scientific merit, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to comply with the journal's peer-review procedures, maintain the confidentiality of all manuscript-related information, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and provide an independent assessment to support the editor's publication decision. Reviewers should also consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and apply the relevant principles throughout the review process.

The peer-review process at SEARCH: Science Education Research Journal is designed to achieve the following objectives:

1.1. Improving Manuscript Quality. Reviewers are expected to provide expert, evidence-based feedback that helps authors strengthen the conceptual framework, research questions, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of their manuscripts.

1.2. Ensuring Scientific Rigor. Reviewers should assess whether the research design, data collection procedures, analytical techniques, and conclusions are appropriate, transparent, and sufficiently supported by the evidence presented.

1.3. Supporting Originality and Scholarly Contribution. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript's originality, relevance to science education research, engagement with current scholarship, and potential contribution to theory, research, educational practice, or policy.

1.4. Upholding Publication Ethics. Reviewers help identify potential concerns involving plagiarism, redundant publication, inappropriate data presentation, unsupported claims, questionable research practices, and other possible breaches of research or publication integrity. Any concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor, with supporting details where possible.

1.5. Supporting Editorial Decisions. Reviewers provide professional recommendations and clear justifications to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the authorized editor.

Reviewers should have appropriate expertise in the subject area, theoretical perspective, research methodology, or analytical approach addressed by the manuscript. They should accept an invitation only when they have sufficient knowledge to provide a meaningful assessment and can complete the review within the proposed timeframe. If a manuscript falls outside their expertise, reviewers should inform the editor promptly and, where appropriate, indicate the areas in which they can provide a reliable assessment.

Reviewers should respond to invitations as soon as reasonably possible, whether accepting or declining the request. Before accepting, they should consider the expected workload, the deadline, any competing professional commitments, and any circumstances that could compromise their independence or impartiality. If they are unable to complete the review, they should notify the editor without delay rather than allow the manuscript to remain pending unnecessarily.

Reviewers must not delegate a review to another person without the editor's prior permission. If the editor authorizes assistance from a qualified colleague or trainee, the identity of that person should be disclosed to the editor, and the same confidentiality and ethical requirements must be observed.

All manuscripts, supplementary materials, review reports, and editorial correspondence must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, publicly discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal, professional, or research advantage. Information obtained through peer review must not be used to gain an unfair academic or commercial benefit.

The journal's applicable peer-review model should be followed throughout the process. Where double-anonymous peer review is used, reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors unnecessarily or take steps to undermine author anonymity. Reviewers must also avoid disclosing their own identity to authors through comments, file metadata, correspondence, or other means when anonymity is required by the journal's procedure.

If reviewers recognize a manuscript from a preprint server, institutional repository, conference presentation, or another legitimate public source, they should disclose this circumstance to the editor if it could affect the review. Recognition of a manuscript's authors does not automatically disqualify a reviewer; however, the reviewer must remain objective and inform the editor if the circumstances create a material concern about impartiality.

Reviews must be objective, balanced, evidence-based, and respectful. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript according to its scholarly quality rather than the authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political views, career stage, or personal characteristics. Criticism should address the research, argumentation, evidence, and presentation rather than the authors personally. Hostile, discriminatory, sarcastic, or derogatory language is not acceptable.

Reviewers should distinguish major scientific or methodological weaknesses from minor editorial issues and explain why each concern matters. They should avoid imposing personal preferences as universal requirements, demanding unnecessary citations to their own work, or recommending references solely to increase the citation count of themselves, colleagues, or particular journals. Suggested references should be relevant, credible, and necessary to improve the manuscript's scholarly context.

Reviewers should not make unsupported allegations of misconduct. When they identify a possible ethical or scientific concern, they should describe the relevant evidence and communicate the concern privately to the editor. The editor is responsible for determining the appropriate follow-up action.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflict of interest before accepting an invitation or as soon as a relevant circumstance becomes apparent. Conflicts may arise from financial relationships, current or recent collaboration, supervisory or mentoring relationships, close personal relationships, direct competition, institutional connections, or other circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the review.

Reviewers who believe that a conflict may compromise their independence should inform the editor and allow the editor to determine whether the review can proceed. Reviewers must not use confidential information from the manuscript to advance their own research, interfere with competing work, or obtain an inappropriate advantage. Disclosure does not automatically determine the outcome; the editor will assess the nature and significance of the circumstances.

Reviewers should read the manuscript carefully and assess its overall quality in relation to the journal's aims and scope, submission requirements, and relevant scholarly standards. The review should consider the following aspects where applicable to the type of manuscript:

6.1. Title, Abstract, and Keywords. Assess whether the title accurately represents the research focus, whether the abstract clearly communicates the purpose, design, principal findings, and conclusions, and whether the keywords adequately reflect the manuscript's main concepts and subject area.

6.2. Research Problem and Theoretical Foundation. Determine whether the research problem is clearly established, the research gap is adequately justified, the objectives or research questions are coherent, and the theoretical framework is appropriate and supported by relevant literature. Reviewers should identify conceptual inaccuracies, unsupported assumptions, or misinterpretations of prior studies.

6.3. Research Design and Methods. Examine the suitability of the research design, participant or sample selection, instruments, procedures, data sources, and analytical methods. Reviewers should consider whether the methods are described sufficiently for readers to understand and, where appropriate, reproduce the study. Claims about validity, reliability, trustworthiness, or methodological quality should be supported by appropriate evidence.

6.4. Results and Data Analysis. Assess whether the findings are presented clearly, accurately, and consistently with the stated methods. Tables, figures, statistical results, qualitative evidence, and supplementary materials should be interpretable and relevant. Reviewers should identify discrepancies between the reported data and the claims made in the manuscript and should request clarification when essential information is missing.

6.5. Discussion and Interpretation. Evaluate whether the discussion interprets the findings critically in relation to the research questions, theoretical framework, and relevant previous studies. Authors should distinguish empirical findings from interpretation, acknowledge plausible alternative explanations, and avoid claims that extend beyond the evidence or the limitations of the study design.

6.6. Conclusions, Implications, and Limitations. Determine whether the conclusions follow logically from the findings and whether the stated theoretical, educational, practical, or policy implications are justified. Reviewers should encourage authors to acknowledge important limitations and avoid causal claims when the design and evidence do not support causal inference.

6.7. References and Scholarly Context. Examine whether the cited literature is relevant, sufficiently current for the topic, accurately represented, and appropriately integrated into the argument. Reviewers should identify important omissions where they materially affect the manuscript's contribution, while avoiding unnecessary or excessive citation requests.

6.8. Language, Organization, and Presentation. Assess whether the manuscript is logically organized, clearly written, and consistent in terminology, notation, units, citations, tables, and figures. Reviewers may suggest corrections to English or other language-related issues when unclear wording affects scientific meaning, but language editing should not replace the assessment of scientific content.

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript provides appropriate information about research ethics approval, informed consent, participant protection, data privacy, and other relevant ethical safeguards when these are applicable to the study. For research involving students, children, or other potentially vulnerable participants, particular attention should be paid to the adequacy of ethical protections and the reporting of relevant approvals and consent procedures.

Reviewers should also remain alert to possible plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabricated or manipulated data, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and other potential breaches of publication ethics. Reviewers should not independently contact the authors to investigate suspected misconduct. Instead, they should provide the editor with a confidential explanation and any relevant evidence so that the matter can be assessed through appropriate editorial procedures.

Reviewers should not upload or disclose confidential manuscript content to public platforms or external artificial intelligence tools or services where doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or author anonymity. Any use of technological assistance must comply with applicable journal policies, confidentiality obligations, and the reviewer’s responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the submitted report. Reviewers remain accountable for all comments and recommendations they submit.

Reviewers should provide a clear, structured, and sufficiently detailed report through the journal's designated online submission system or other channel specified by the editor. Comments intended for authors should focus on actionable improvements and should be written in professional, constructive language. The report should identify both the manuscript's principal strengths and the areas requiring improvement, explaining the reasons for significant criticisms and, where possible, suggesting practical ways to address them.

Major concerns should be distinguished from minor corrections. Major concerns may involve the research question, theoretical contribution, methodological validity, adequacy of evidence, analytical procedures, ethical compliance, or the relationship between the findings and conclusions. Minor concerns may include terminology, organization, clarity, formatting, citation accuracy, or language errors that do not fundamentally undermine the study.

Reviewers should formulate specific questions when clarification is needed and indicate where a claim, explanation, table, figure, or methodological description requires revision. If shortening the manuscript is recommended, reviewers should identify the sections that could be condensed and explain how doing so would improve focus or readability. Corrections to language should be made or suggested when necessary to clarify technical meaning, without rewriting the manuscript in a way that obscures the authors' intended contribution.

If the journal's review form provides separate fields for confidential comments to the editor and comments to the authors, reviewers should use these fields appropriately. Confidential comments may address the rationale for the recommendation, potential ethical concerns, or matters that should not be disclosed directly to the authors. Substantive criticism and revision requests should ordinarily be included in the author-facing report so that authors have a fair opportunity to respond.

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers should provide a recommendation to the editor and explain the reasoning supporting that recommendation. The recommendation should reflect the manuscript's scholarly merit, the seriousness of any identified weaknesses, and the extent to which the concerns can reasonably be addressed through revision. The available options may include the following, depending on the journal's editorial system:

9.1. Accept. Recommend acceptance when the manuscript meets the journal's standards for scholarly quality, methodological rigor, originality, ethical compliance, and presentation, and no substantive revision is required. Reviewers should explain why the manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.

9.2. Minor Revision. Recommend minor revision when the manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires limited corrections or clarifications that do not substantially change the study's design, analysis, or central conclusions. Reviewers should specify the changes needed and explain how they would improve the manuscript.

9.3. Major Revision. Recommend major revision when substantial issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered further. These may include significant improvements to the theoretical justification, methodological explanation, analysis, interpretation, reporting, or alignment between evidence and conclusions. Reviewers should state which issues are essential and indicate whether they appear potentially addressable through revision.

9.4. Reject. Recommend rejection when the manuscript does not adequately meet the journal's standards or falls outside its aims and scope, and when its principal shortcomings cannot reasonably be resolved through revision. The recommendation should be supported by a clear and professional explanation of the substantive concerns. Reviewers should not recommend rejection solely because a study's results differ from their expectations or preferred theoretical position.

A reviewer recommendation is advisory rather than a final publication decision. The editor considers the review report alongside other reviews, the journal's editorial policies, the manuscript's overall quality, and any relevant ethical or procedural concerns before determining the outcome.

When a revised manuscript is returned for further assessment, reviewers should evaluate the authors' responses to the previous comments and determine whether the requested changes have been addressed adequately. Reviewers should focus on unresolved substantive issues and avoid introducing new requirements that are unrelated to the earlier assessment unless new evidence or a legitimate concern warrants additional comment.

If the authors have not addressed a significant concern, reviewers should explain what remains unresolved and why it affects the manuscript's quality or conclusions. If the revision adequately resolves the issues, reviewers should acknowledge the improvement and update their recommendation accordingly. The editor determines whether further review is necessary and whether the revised manuscript can proceed to the next editorial stage.

Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the deadline communicated in the invitation or agreed with the editor. Timely reviews help the journal maintain an efficient and fair editorial process. If unforeseen circumstances prevent a reviewer from meeting the deadline, the reviewer should inform the editor promptly and indicate a realistic alternative completion date or decline the assignment if necessary.

All communications about manuscript status, review progress, potential ethical concerns, or editorial procedures should be directed to the editor or authorized journal representative. Reviewers should not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review unless the editor has explicitly authorized such communication.

Reviewers must exercise professional judgment when using artificial intelligence or automated tools in connection with peer review. Because manuscripts and review materials are confidential, reviewers must not enter unpublished manuscript text, author-identifying information, research data, or confidential editorial correspondence into external AI systems unless the journal explicitly permits the use under appropriate confidentiality and data-protection safeguards.

AI-generated outputs must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly assessment. Reviewers remain responsible for checking the accuracy, relevance, fairness, and originality of every comment submitted, including any language or analytical assistance obtained from permitted tools. Reviewers should follow the journal's current policies on AI use and disclose any use when required by those policies or by the editor.

Before submitting a review, reviewers should ensure that their comments are complete, internally consistent, constructive, and aligned with the recommendation selected. They should confirm that the report provides sufficient explanation for the principal criticisms and clearly identifies the revisions necessary to improve the manuscript. After completing the required fields and uploading any permitted supporting documents through the journal's designated system, reviewers should submit the report to the editor. The editor will communicate the relevant feedback to the authors in accordance with the journal's review procedures.

SEARCH: Science Education Research Journal appreciates the time, expertise, and professional commitment of its reviewers. Their careful assessments contribute to the development of reliable scholarship and the advancement of science education research. By participating in peer review, reviewers are expected to uphold the principles of integrity, fairness, confidentiality, accountability, and respect for the scholarly community. The journal encourages reviewers to consult the relevant ethical guidance provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and to contact the editor whenever uncertainty arises regarding a reviewer's responsibilities.

For questions concerning reviewer invitations, review procedures, ethical issues, deadlines, or the submission of review reports, please contact the editorial team of SEARCH: Science Education Research Journal.

Email: searchjpipa@gmail.com

Journal Website: SEARCH: Science Education Research Journal

Reviewers are encouraged to read these guidelines carefully before accepting a review invitation and to refer to them throughout the review process. Compliance with these guidelines supports a transparent, responsible, and academically rigorous peer-review process.