Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines
Peer review is a central component of GiST – Education and Learning Research Journal’s commitment to academic rigor, ethical integrity, and pedagogical quality. Reviewers play a key role in strengthening scholarly work and supporting constructive academic dialogue.
These guidelines outline the responsibilities, ethical expectations, and scope of participation for reviewers involved in the journal’s editorial process.
- Peer Review Model
GiST employs a double-blind peer review process for all research articles, reflective articles, review articles, case studies, and pedagogical essays.
- Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.
- Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two external reviewers with relevant expertise.
- In cases of substantially divergent evaluations, the Editor may consult an additional blind reviewer or rely on the Editorial Committee to reach a final decision.
Book reviews are evaluated internally by members of the Editorial Committee or Editorial Team. Reviews may also be assessed by faculty members of Institución Universitaria Colombo Americana – ÚNICA, or by other scholars with demonstrated expertise in the subject area of the book under review.
Book reviews are not subject to external peer review, and their evaluation focuses on scholarly relevance, critical engagement, and contribution to ongoing discussions in bilingual education and related fields.
- Selection and Invitation of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected by the Editor based on:
- subject-matter expertise,
- academic and professional experience,
- methodological competence,
- absence of conflicts of interest.
Review invitations include:
- the manuscript abstract,
- access instructions via the OJS platform,
- the proposed review timeline (normally one month),
- a summary of ethical responsibilities.
Reviewers who are unable to meet the proposed deadline or who identify a conflict of interest must notify the editorial team promptly.
- Scope and Purpose of the Review
Peer review at GiST is both evaluative and formative.
Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts with attention to:
- relevance to the journal’s scope,
- originality and contribution to the field,
- methodological rigor and coherence,
- engagement with relevant scholarly literature,
- clarity of structure and argumentation,
- ethical soundness of the research.
In keeping with GiST’s pedagogical mission, reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, respectful, and actionable feedback that helps authors strengthen their work.
- Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to:
- Maintain Confidentiality
- Treat all manuscripts and related materials as strictly confidential.
- Do not share, cite, or distribute the manuscript or any of its content.
- Do not use unpublished material for personal or professional benefit.
- Declare Conflicts of Interest
- Disclose any financial, institutional, professional, or personal relationships that could compromise objectivity.
- Decline the review if a conflict of interest is identified.
- Act with Integrity and Objectivity
- Provide unbiased evaluations based solely on scholarly merit.
- Use respectful, professional, and non-discriminatory language.
- Avoid personal criticism of the author(s).
- Respect Timelines
- Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
- Communicate promptly if delays are unavoidable.
- Ethical Vigilance and Reporting Concerns
Reviewers play an important role in identifying potential ethical issues, including:
- plagiarism or text recycling,
- duplicate or redundant publication,
- data fabrication or falsification,
- inappropriate image manipulation,
- unethical research practices involving human participants.
Any concerns must be reported confidentially to the Editor, who will proceed in accordance with the journal’s Ethical Guidelines and Ethical Procedures.
- Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers
GiST permits limited use of artificial intelligence tools by reviewers under strict conditions:
- AI tools may be used exclusively for grammar checking or language support, including translation if necessary.
- AI tools may not be used to evaluate intellectual content, generate review reports, assess originality, or influence editorial decisions.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and judgment of their reviews.
- Review Reports and Recommendations
Reviewers submit their evaluations through the journal’s review form, which includes:
- a structured checklist aligned with GiST’s evaluation criteria,
- a section for comments addressed to the author(s),
- An optional space to upload an annotated version of the manuscript.
Reviewers are asked to recommend one of the following outcomes:
- Accept
- Accept with minor revisions.
- Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
- Reject
Final publication decisions rest with the Editor.
- Editorial Independence and Communication
- Editorial decisions are made independently by the Editor, informed by peer review reports and, when necessary, by consultation with the Editorial Committee.
- Reviewers must not contact authors directly at any stage of the process.
- Recognition of Reviewers
Recognition of Peer Review
GiST recognizes peer review as a vital scholarly contribution to the quality and integrity of academic publishing.
- Reviewers may receive certificates of contribution issued by the journal.
- With the reviewer’s explicit consent, names may be published as part of GiST’s periodic public acknowledgement of reviewers.
- Peer review is conducted on a voluntary basis. No financial compensation is provided.
- Alignment with Ethical Standards
All reviewers are expected to adhere to:
- GiST’s Ethical Guidelines and Ethical Procedures,
- COPE Core Practices,
- internationally recognized standards of publication ethics.
Concerns or questions related to the review process may be addressed to the editorial team via the official journal email address.
