Reviewer Guidelines

Journal of Education, Psychology and Inclusion (JEPI) relies on reviewers to support the quality, credibility, and fairness of its editorial process. Reviewers are expected to provide informed, objective, and constructive assessments that assist the editor in making a decision and help authors strengthen the scholarly quality of their manuscripts.

Review invitations are ordinarily extended on the basis of subject expertise and the relevance of the reviewer’s academic or professional background to the manuscript under consideration. A reviewer who does not feel sufficiently qualified to assess the submission, or who is unable to complete the review within a reasonable period, should decline the invitation promptly so that the editorial process is not unnecessarily delayed.

Reviews should be conducted with professionalism, academic fairness, and respect for the author’s work. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shared, discussed with others, or used for personal, professional, or research advantage outside the formal review process.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate submissions on the basis of scholarly merit and relevance to the journal’s scope. In general, a review should consider the originality of the manuscript, the significance of the topic, conceptual clarity, engagement with relevant literature, methodological appropriateness, coherence of argument, quality of analysis, validity of conclusions, ethical soundness where applicable, and overall contribution to the fields of education, psychology, and inclusion.

Comments should be clear, specific, and constructive. Reviewers are encouraged to identify strengths as well as weaknesses and, where revision is needed, to indicate the areas that require improvement. Critical observations should be expressed in a professional and respectful manner. Personal remarks about the author are not appropriate, and recommendations should remain focused on the manuscript itself.

Where a reviewer becomes aware of a potential conflict of interest, including personal, institutional, financial, collaborative, or competitive relationships that may affect impartial judgement, the reviewer should disclose this promptly to the editorial office and, where necessary, decline the review.

Reviewers should also alert the editor if they identify substantial similarity between the manuscript and other known works, serious concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate submission, unethical research practice, fabricated or unreliable data, or other forms of academic misconduct.

The reviewer’s recommendation is advisory in nature. Final decisions regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection remain the responsibility of the editor. Reviewers may be asked to reassess revised manuscripts where further expert input is considered necessary.

JEPI values timely, balanced, and scholarly reviews. By accepting a review invitation, reviewers contribute directly to the maintenance of academic standards and to the development of responsible and meaningful scholarly communication.