Education Thinking

Online Review Form

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 comply with the journal’s requirements (i.e., “An abstract presenting in not more than 300 words the research question, the objectives of the paper, the method used for the literature review, the main results obtained, and blindspots identified as worth research consideration in future”)?

2. Quality of the introduction: Does the introduction comply with the journal’s requirements (i.e., “An introduction setting up the research question including key definitions, and spelling out the stakes, objectives and scope of the literature review. The last paragraph of the introduction shall list the major remaining sections.”)? – Could the introduction be improved? If yes, how?

3. Clarity and relevance of the method adopted for the literature review: Is the method clearly described? – Is the method relevant? – Does the author discuss the respective quality of sources?

4. Clarity and relevance of the results obtained: Are the results clear? – Are the results in relation to the research question?

5. Discussion: Does the discussion take on board the approaches and results from existing research literature? – Does the article identify blindspots that are worth research consideration in future?

6. Conclusion: Are the conclusions based on the review results? – Does the author draw all the conclusions that derive from the results? – Are the conclusions logical given the review results?

7. Scope and up-to-dateness: Does the article embrace at least a significantly large part of the expected scope? – Aren’t major pieces of the existing research literature on the topic missed? – Does the literature review take on board the most recent research literature on the topic?

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

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

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

11. 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