The Journal of Educational Integration and Development applies a double-blind review (author and reviewer information is kept confidential from each other) on submitted articles except for editorials. We understand that reviews serve as an important step in the overall publication process, therefore, we highly value the role that reviewers voluntarily play.

Reviews can be submitted via our online form or using the form we provide here.

The Journal of Educational Integration and Development applies a double-blind review (author and reviewer information is kept confidential from each other) on submitted articles except for editorials. We understand that reviews serve as an important step in the overall publication process, therefore, we highly value the role that reviewers voluntarily play.

Reviews can be submitted via our online form or using the form we provide here.

General review

All articles submitted to JEID: Journal of Educational Integration and Development, except editorials, are peer-reviewed. Reviewers are asked to provide recommendations on whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised or rejected. We perform plagiarism screening for each article, but reviewers are expected to alert the editor if they suspect any infringement issues by the author.

Reviewers invited by the editor should disclose any potential conflicts of interest they may have with respect to the manuscript or authors. All possible personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest must be considered.

Review in Detail

Reviewers are asked to provide detailed and constructive comments that will help editors make decisions about publication and authors to improve their manuscripts. They should indicate whether the work has serious flaws that would preclude its publication, or whether additional experiments should be performed or additional data should be collected to support the conclusions drawn.

When preparing a report, we ask our reviewers to consider the following:

1. Originality and significance of the work presented.

Reviewers are asked to comment on the originality of the manuscript and its significance to the scientific community. If the manuscript being reviewed presents an idea that is not original or similar work has been published previously, the reviewer must provide a reference.

2. An experimental or theoretical approach to the problem under discussion

Reviewers are asked to discuss the novelty of the theoretical approach and experimental methods presented in the manuscript

3. Strengths and weaknesses of the methods used

Reviewers must assess the suitability of the methods used. If necessary, technical aspects of the paper, such as statistical analysis, should be commented on. Reviewers must provide suggestions for improvements that will result in increased quality of the manuscript.

4. Reliability of results and validity of conclusions

Reviewers are asked to comment on the reliability of the results and consider whether the conclusions drawn are supported by the data collected.

5. Manuscript organization

Reviewers should comment on whether the manuscript is easy to read and the arguments are explained in a logical and understandable manner. They should suggest improvements, if necessary.

6. Discussion of the most relevant literature on this topic

Reviewers should comment on the relevance of the literature cited in the manuscript. They should provide references for any important research not mentioned in the manuscript.

      7.Revision

When revisions to the manuscript are suggested, reviewers are asked to recommend which aspects of the work should be improved: better motivation for the research, additional data to confirm the conclusions, better organization of the paper or manuscript.

Please note that, if necessary, accepted manuscripts will undergo language editing by native English speakers. Incorrect grammar, style, or punctuation should not be a sufficient reason to reject a paper if it is still understandable to the reviewers and its content warrants publication from a scientific point of view.

Confidentiality

Please do not distribute copies of the manuscript or use any results contained therein. However, do not hesitate to bring it up to discuss it with knowledgeable colleagues and consult them about the review. We would appreciate it if you could suggest to the reviewer a suitable alternative for the topic at hand.

Technical

Please return your report within the specified deadline or notify the Editor as soon as possible if you are unable to do so. You can submit your review via the online submission system [submissions] or via email [official.embada@gmail.com].