Education Thinking

Online Review Form for Primary Literature Articles

Please complete then send the form.

Title of the manuscript *

1. Relevance of title, abstract and keywords: Do the title, abstract and keywords accurately reflect the major points of the paper? – Does the abstract present, in not more than 300 words, the research question, the objectives of the paper, and indications on the research method used, the main results obtained, and the implications of the findings for theory and/or policy and/or practice?

2. Quality of the introduction: Does the introduction set up the research question including key definitions? Does it spell out the stakes, objectives and scope of the research presented? Does the last paragraph of the introduction list the major remaining sections? – Could the introduction be improved? If yes, how?

3. Analytical framework: Does the paper have an analytical framework? Is the analytical framework clearly presented?

4. Methodological framework: Is the data collection method clearly described? Is the data analysis method clearly described? – Are the methods used relevant?

5. Results section: Are the results clearly described? – Do the results presented relate to the research question?

6. Discussion: Are the results discussed in light of, compared to, constrated with those from the existing literature?

7. Conclusion: Are the conclusions based on the results? – Do the authors draw all the conclusions that derive from the results? – Are the conclusions logical given the results? Are implications for theory and/or policy and/or practice drawn? Are weak points of the research identified? Are avenues for future research outlined?

8. Scope and up-to-dateness: Does the article reach the announced objectives? – Aren’t major pieces of the existing research literature on the topic missed? – Does the paper take into account the most recent existing research literature on the topic?

9. Overall added value: Has the article added value as compared to the existing literature on the topic?

10. Overall quality of writing and text structure: Is the writing easy to follow and catchy? – Is the main text structured in a coherent manner?

11. Ethical issues: Does the manuscript seem to pose ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate submission, redundant publication, etc.)?

12. Other comments: Please address here any other issues as necessary.

Your overall comment, if any

Your recommendation *Acceptance (i.e., no revision is required)Acceptance conditional to minor revisionAcceptance subject to substantial revisionInvitation to resubmit after in-depth revision (the revised paper will be sent back to the referee for reassessment before a final decision is made)Rejection

Please upload the authors' file if you have annotated it with changes and/or comments to the attention of the authors

No file chosen

Salutation, First Name and Last Name of the reviewer *

Review Certificate *I need a Review Certificate. Please send me one.I don't need a Review Certificate. No need to send me any.

Private report to the Editor: Optional – You may draft here an additional separate comment specifically addressed to the Editor, which will not be disclosed to the authors.

Visitor Counter