Evaluation Criteria

The Journal of Studies in Teaching Practice and Educational Innovation (REPDIE) uses a structured academic evaluation form to guide the review process for manuscripts submitted to peer review.

The evaluation is conducted under a double-blind review system, meaning that authors and reviewers remain unaware of each other’s identities throughout the review process. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and refrain from participating whenever they identify an academic, professional, institutional, financial, or personal conflict of interest that could compromise the impartiality of their assessment.

The purpose of the review is to provide a rigorous, independent, respectful, and constructive assessment that contributes both to the editorial decision and to the academic strengthening of the manuscripts submitted for consideration by the journal.

 

Evaluation Form

Reviewers receive, through REPDIE’s editorial platform, an academic review form that guides the systematic assessment of the manuscript.

Depending on the nature of the contribution, the instrument considers aspects related to relevance to the journal’s focus and scope; theoretical grounding; sufficiency and currency of the literature; originality and relevance of the contribution; clarity of purpose; conceptual, methodological, or argumentative rigor; analysis and discussion; organization and coherence of the text; contribution to the field of education; clarity of academic writing; compliance with ethical principles; and the overall assessment of the manuscript.

The form includes spaces for comments and recommendations addressed to the authors, as well as a section for confidential comments to the editorial team, the contents of which are not shared with the authors.

The assessment must take into account the specific characteristics of the type of contribution submitted: research article, academic essay, literature review, contribution to teaching, or another category accepted by the journal, avoiding the application of methodological criteria that do not correspond to the nature of the manuscript.

 

Aspects to Consider in the Evaluation of Manuscripts
Theoretical Grounding and Literature Review

Assess whether the manuscript presents relevant, sufficient, and up-to-date theoretical grounding and a literature review in relation to the problem, topic, or object of study.

When areas that could be strengthened are identified, indicate which perspectives, background studies, concepts, or areas of the literature could be considered to enrich the work.

Bibliographic recommendations should respond to genuine academic needs of the manuscript and should not be aimed at promoting unnecessary citations.

 

Relevance and Sufficiency of Content

Identify relevant concepts, problems, background information, data, or perspectives that have not been sufficiently considered and whose inclusion could contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the topic addressed.

When appropriate, provide specific recommendations regarding the aspects that should be expanded, clarified, or incorporated.

 

Treatment of the Educational Problem, Topic, or Phenomenon

Assess whether the manuscript adequately and sufficiently develops the problems, phenomena, experiences, trends, questions, or educational situations it addresses.

Consider the clarity with which the object of analysis is delimited and the consistency between the purpose of the work and its development.

Provide specific suggestions when you consider it necessary to strengthen, expand, or clarify particular aspects.

 

Balance, Depth, and Delimitation

Assess whether the different components of the manuscript are treated in a balanced manner.

Identify possible excesses, omissions, or disproportionate emphases and, when appropriate, suggest which sections should be expanded, condensed, reorganized, delimited, or examined in greater depth to improve the overall consistency of the work.

 

Academic Rigor and Consistency

Identify the main conceptual, methodological, argumentative, or analytical strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript according to the type of contribution being evaluated.

For research articles, consider in particular the consistency among the problem, objectives or research questions, methodology, analytical procedures, results, discussion, and conclusions.

For academic essays, assess the strength of the argumentation, conceptual articulation, support for claims, analytical depth, and critical capacity of the text.

For literature reviews, consider the breadth, relevance, and currency of the sources, as well as the work’s capacity to organize, synthesize, and critically interpret the available knowledge.

For contributions to teaching, assess the contextualization of the experience or proposal, its grounding, the clarity of its development, the evidence presented, and the reflection on its scope and educational implications.

Explain how the identified weaknesses affect the soundness of the manuscript and provide specific recommendations for addressing them.

 

Strengths and Contribution of the Manuscript

Identify the main strengths of the work and explain how they contribute originality, relevance, or academic value.

Consider especially the manuscript’s contribution to the understanding, analysis, reflection, or improvement of teaching practice, teacher education, teaching and learning processes, educational innovation, or other phenomena related to REPDIE’s field of interest.

When appropriate, indicate how the identified strengths could be used to strengthen the less developed sections of the manuscript.

 

Correspondence with the Type of Contribution

Assess whether the manuscript is correctly classified within the publication categories accepted by REPDIE.

Consider whether its structure, purpose, and development correspond to the category selected by the authors.

When you consider that the work would be better suited to another category, indicate which one and justify your recommendation.

 

Organization, Coherence, and Clarity

Assess the overall organization of the manuscript, the articulation among its sections, the progression of ideas, and the coherence of its argumentative or expository development.

Also consider the clarity of academic writing, conceptual precision, and readability of the text.

Specifically identify those sections that require reorganization, expansion, condensation, greater articulation, or a clearer presentation of ideas.

 

Overall Assessment and Recommendations for the Authors

Provide an overall and constructive assessment that can guide the revision and strengthening of the manuscript.

Comments should be sufficiently justified and expressed in a respectful, clear, and specific manner.

Whenever possible, distinguish between:

a) changes that are essential for the manuscript to be considered for publication; and

b) additional recommendations that could contribute to improving the quality of the work.

 

Editorial Recommendation

Indicate and justify your recommendation regarding the manuscript by selecting one of the following options:

Accept. The manuscript meets the academic requirements for publication and does not require substantive modifications.

Accept with revisions. The manuscript may be published once the authors have addressed comments or modifications that do not substantially alter its approach, development, or contribution.

Revise and resubmit. The manuscript shows academic potential but requires substantial modifications before a publication decision can be made. The revised version may be submitted for further evaluation.

Reject. The manuscript presents problems of relevance, originality, rigor, consistency, or development that prevent its publication from being recommended.

The reviewer must briefly justify the selected option.

 

Confidential Comments for the Editorial Team

The reviewer may provide comments intended exclusively for the editorial team when they consider it necessary to communicate information relevant to the decision regarding the manuscript.

This section may be used to report possible conflicts of interest, issues of originality or academic integrity, concerns regarding the data, procedures, or results presented, or any other circumstance that should be taken into account during the editorial decision.

Comments included in this section will not be shared with the authors.

 

Principles of Evaluation

By participating in the review process, reviewers agree to:

• conduct their assessment with independence, impartiality, and academic rigor;
• maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the editorial process;
• inform the editorial team whenever a potential conflict of interest exists;
• refrain from using or disclosing information, ideas, data, or results contained in the manuscript prior to publication;
• base their comments and recommendations exclusively on academic criteria;
• provide respectful and constructive comments, avoiding personal, discriminatory, or irrelevant remarks unrelated to the evaluation of the work;
• confidentially inform the editorial team of any situation that may compromise the academic integrity of the manuscript.

The recommendation issued by the reviewers constitutes a fundamental element in the decision-making process; however, the final editorial decision rests with REPDIE’s editorial team, based on the reviews received, compliance with the journal’s policies, and the authors’ response to the comments made during the evaluation process.