Reviewer Guidelines

LEOTECH advises reviewers to adhere to the following guidelines when reviewing manuscripts submitted to the journal. The purpose of peer review is to ensure the academic quality, integrity, and relevance of manuscripts while providing constructive feedback to authors.

General Principles of Review

Conflict of Interest: reviewers must ascertain the absence of any potential conflict of interest related to the manuscript under review. If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers must promptly inform the editor and decline the review request.

Relevance to Journal Scope: reviewers should evaluate whether the topic and field of study of the manuscript align with the aims and scope of LEOTECH: Journal of Learning, Education, and Technology.

Ethical and Guideline Compliance: reviewers are expected to assess whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s Author Guidelines and adheres to accepted ethical standards of scholarly publication.

Scholarly Quality Assessment: reviewers must critically assess the manuscript’s originality, significance, novelty, methodological rigor, data quality, use of references, clarity of presentation, strength of discussion, accuracy of conclusions, and appropriateness of language.

Constructive and Objective Reporting: reviewers are required to provide an evaluation report that is unbiased, clear, and constructive, offering specific comments and actionable suggestions to improve the manuscript.

 

Reviewer Recommendation Categories

Reviewers are asked to select one of the following recommendations based on the academic validity and quality of the manuscript:

Accept: the manuscript is scientifically sound and requires no or only very minor revisions.

Minor Revision: the manuscript has academic merit but requires small revisions for clarity, completeness, or presentation.

Major Revision: the manuscript shows potential but requires substantial revisions related to methodology, analysis, interpretation, or structure.

Reject: the manuscript has fundamental flaws that undermine its academic validity and is not suitable for publication in its current form.

Resubmit for Review: the manuscript cannot be accepted or rejected at this stage but demonstrates scientific potential. The authors are required to undertake major revisions, and the resubmitted manuscript will be processed as a new submission and undergo a full peer review process.

 

Guiding Questions for Manuscript Review

Reviewers are encouraged to use the following questions to guide their assessment:

  1. Is the manuscript clearly written, well structured, supported by relevant and up-to-date literature, and aligned with the aims and scope of LEOTECH?
  2. Does the introduction clearly present the research background and problem, identify the research gap, and explicitly state the novelty and objectives of the study?
  3. Is the theoretical framework relevant, with key concepts and variables clearly defined, and logically connected to the research objectives and design?
  4. Are the research methods (design, participants or data sources, instruments, and data collection procedures) clearly described and sufficient to allow replication of the study?
  5. Are the results presented clearly, objectively, and systematically, and supported by relevant tables or figures that are appropriately referenced in the text?
  6. Does the discussion critically interpret the findings, compare them with existing theories and previous studies, and demonstrate the theoretical and/or practical contributions of the research?
  7. Are the conclusions consistent with the research objectives and findings, and do they appropriately address study limitations and directions for future research?
  8. Does the manuscript adhere to publication ethics, show no indication of plagiarism, and use clear academic language suitable for an international readership?

 

Reviewer Report

Reviewers are encouraged to:

  1. Provide a brief summary of the manuscript.
  2. Clearly state major strengths and weaknesses.
  3. Distinguish between major issues and minor issues.
  4. Offer specific, constructive, and respectful feedback to help authors improve their work.

All reviewer comments should be written in a professional and collegial manner.