Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is an essential part of the scholarly publishing process at Learning Communities — International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts. Reviewers contribute to the quality, credibility, originality, methodological rigor, and academic integrity of the research published by the journal.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, confidentially, and professionally. Reviewer recommendations assist the editors in making publication decisions and help authors strengthen the quality and clarity of their work.

Peer Review Model

Learning Communities — International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts follows a single-blind peer review process.

Under this model, the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors, while reviewers may have access to the names, affiliations, and other identifying information of the authors.

Reviewers must not reveal their identities to authors during or after the review process unless disclosure has been expressly authorized by the journal.

Role of the Reviewer

The primary responsibility of a reviewer is to provide an independent scholarly assessment of the manuscript. A review should assist the editor in determining whether the manuscript is suitable for publication and should provide authors with clear, constructive, and academically justified recommendations for improvement.

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript on its scholarly merits rather than on personal preferences, institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, political views, geographical location, or other characteristics unrelated to academic quality.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should consider whether they:

• Have appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
• Can provide an objective and independent assessment.
• Have sufficient time to complete the review within the requested period.
• Have no conflict of interest that could compromise impartiality.
• Can maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.

If a reviewer lacks sufficient expertise, has a significant conflict of interest, or cannot complete the review within the required period, the invitation should be declined promptly so that another reviewer may be appointed.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Conflicts may arise from personal, professional, academic, institutional, financial, competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, their institutions, their research groups, or the subject matter of the manuscript.

A reviewer should normally decline a review where a relationship or interest could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the objectivity of the assessment.

If uncertainty exists regarding a possible conflict of interest, the reviewer should inform the editorial office and allow the editor to determine whether the review may proceed.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, upload, discuss, or disclose the manuscript or its contents to unauthorized persons.

Information, arguments, data, methods, findings, figures, tables, supplementary materials, or unpublished ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal research, professional advantage, commercial benefit, competitive purposes, or any other unauthorized purpose.

Reviewer reports and editorial correspondence should also be treated as confidential.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts when using artificial intelligence, generative AI, large language models, automated writing systems, or similar digital technologies.

Reviewers should not upload or enter unpublished manuscripts, confidential data, reviewer materials, figures, tables, supplementary files, or identifiable author information into external AI systems where doing so could compromise confidentiality, privacy, copyright, intellectual property, or data protection.

Artificial intelligence must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, quality, reasoning, recommendations, and ethical integrity of their review reports.

Automatically generated review reports that have not been critically evaluated by the assigned reviewer are not acceptable.

Initial Assessment of the Manuscript

Reviewers should begin by considering whether the manuscript is relevant to the aims and scope of the journal and whether it makes a meaningful contribution to research on learning, education, social contexts, communities, culture, policy, pedagogy, or related interdisciplinary fields.

Reviewers should also consider whether the manuscript is sufficiently developed, clearly presented, methodologically appropriate, ethically sound, and supported by relevant scholarship.

Originality and Contribution

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript presents an original contribution to knowledge, theory, methodology, policy, practice, or scholarly debate.

The review should consider whether:

• The research problem is clearly identified.
• The manuscript addresses a meaningful scholarly question.
• The contribution to existing literature is clearly explained.
• The work provides new evidence, interpretation, synthesis, or conceptual insight.
• The conclusions are sufficiently supported by the study.

Title and Abstract

The title should accurately and concisely represent the subject and focus of the manuscript.

The abstract should provide a clear and balanced summary of the study, including the background or purpose, methodology where applicable, principal findings, and main conclusions.

Reviewers should identify important claims or results presented in the manuscript that are not adequately represented in the abstract.

Introduction and Research Context

Reviewers should assess whether the introduction establishes an appropriate scholarly context and clearly explains the research problem, rationale, aims, objectives, or research questions.

The literature cited should be relevant, sufficiently current where appropriate, balanced, and adequate to demonstrate how the study relates to existing knowledge.

Reviewers should identify major omissions in the literature only where those omissions materially affect the interpretation, originality, or validity of the work.

Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

Where a theoretical or conceptual framework is used, reviewers should assess whether it is clearly explained, relevant to the research problem, appropriately applied, and consistently integrated throughout the manuscript.

Reviewers should consider whether concepts are defined adequately and whether interpretations remain consistent with the theoretical foundations adopted by the authors.

Methodology

Reviewers should assess whether the methodology is appropriate for the research objectives and described in sufficient detail to allow readers to understand how the study was conducted.

Depending on the nature of the research, reviewers may consider:

• Study design
• Research setting
• Participants or data sources
• Sampling procedures
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Research instruments or measures
• Data collection procedures
• Validity and reliability
• Analytical methods
• Statistical methods
• Qualitative analytical procedures
• Researcher reflexivity where relevant
• Ethical approval and informed consent where applicable

Any methodological limitation that substantially affects the reliability, credibility, transferability, interpretation, or validity of the findings should be clearly identified in the review.

Quantitative Research

For quantitative studies, reviewers should consider the appropriateness of the study design, sampling strategy, sample size, measurement tools, statistical analyses, reporting of results, and interpretation of findings.

Reviewers should assess whether statistical tests are appropriate, assumptions are addressed where necessary, uncertainty is reported appropriately, and conclusions are consistent with the results.

Qualitative Research

For qualitative studies, reviewers should consider the appropriateness of the methodological approach, participant selection, data collection procedures, analytical process, reflexivity, transparency, and interpretation.

Reviewers should assess whether themes, categories, interpretations, or theoretical claims are adequately grounded in the evidence presented.

Mixed-Methods Research

For mixed-methods studies, reviewers should assess both the quantitative and qualitative components and determine whether the rationale for integration is clearly explained.

The manuscript should demonstrate how the different forms of evidence complement, explain, extend, or challenge one another.

Results and Findings

Results should be presented clearly, accurately, and logically. Reviewers should determine whether the evidence reported is sufficient to address the stated research objectives or questions.

Tables, figures, quotations, statistical results, and other supporting evidence should be relevant and should not unnecessarily duplicate information already presented in the text.

Reviewers should identify inconsistencies between the methods, results, tables, figures, and conclusions where such inconsistencies are present.

Discussion

The discussion should interpret the findings in relation to the research questions, relevant literature, theoretical framework, and broader scholarly context.

Reviewers should assess whether interpretations are proportionate to the evidence and whether authors distinguish adequately between findings, interpretation, speculation, and broader implications.

Overgeneralization, causal claims unsupported by the study design, or conclusions extending substantially beyond the available evidence should be identified.

Conclusion

The conclusion should accurately reflect the principal findings and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

Recommendations and implications should be appropriately supported and should not introduce major new claims that have not been established elsewhere in the manuscript.

Limitations

Authors should acknowledge important limitations that may influence the interpretation or generalizability of their findings.

Reviewers should recommend additional discussion of limitations where significant methodological, contextual, analytical, or evidential constraints have not been adequately addressed.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should consider whether the research appears to have been conducted in accordance with appropriate ethical standards.

For research involving human participants, reviewers should check whether ethical approval and informed consent are reported where required.

Concerns involving participant safety, privacy, confidentiality, vulnerable populations, consent, data protection, or other ethical matters should be brought to the attention of the editor.

Research Integrity

Reviewers should notify the editor if they identify reasonable concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, image manipulation, citation manipulation, unethical research, inappropriate authorship, or other forms of publication misconduct.

Reviewers should provide sufficient information to allow the editorial team to evaluate the concern but should not independently contact the authors regarding suspected misconduct.

References and Citation Style

Reviewers should consider whether the references are relevant, accurate, appropriate, and sufficient to support the scholarly context of the manuscript.

The journal uses APA conventions for formatting bibliographic details, while references are numbered sequentially according to the order in which they first appear in the text.

A source cited more than once should retain the same reference number throughout the manuscript. The reference list should appear in numerical order corresponding to first citation rather than alphabetical order.

Reviewers are not expected to verify every reference individually, but clearly inaccurate, irrelevant, fabricated, unverifiable, or inappropriate citations should be identified where detected.

Language and Presentation

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript is written clearly enough for readers to understand the research and its contribution.

Minor language or grammatical issues should not normally determine the publication recommendation where the scholarship is otherwise sound. However, substantial language problems that prevent accurate evaluation or interpretation should be noted.

Reviewers are encouraged to identify recurring problems rather than copy-editing every sentence unless specific language corrections are essential to meaning.

Tables and Figures

Tables and figures should be relevant, understandable, properly labelled, and appropriately referenced within the manuscript.

Reviewers should consider whether visual materials accurately represent the data and whether unnecessary duplication exists between tables, figures, and the main text.

Data Availability and Transparency

Where appropriate, reviewers should consider whether sufficient information is provided regarding the availability of supporting data, materials, instruments, analytical procedures, or other research resources.

Requests for additional data should be academically justified and should respect ethical, legal, confidentiality, privacy, and intellectual property restrictions.

Constructive Review Reports

Reviewer reports should be written in a professional, respectful, and constructive manner. Comments should explain both the strengths of the manuscript and the areas requiring improvement.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions. Major concerns should be explained clearly enough for both the editor and the authors to understand why they affect the manuscript.

Review comments should focus on the scholarly work rather than on the personal characteristics or competence of the authors.

Recommended Structure of a Review Report

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their reports using the following approach:

1. Overall assessment: Briefly summarize the manuscript's purpose, contribution, strengths, and principal concerns.
2. Major comments: Identify substantive issues relating to originality, methodology, analysis, interpretation, ethics, theory, or conclusions.
3. Minor comments: Identify issues relating to clarity, organization, terminology, presentation, references, tables, figures, or other correctable matters.
4. Recommendation: Provide an overall publication recommendation through the journal's review system.

Recommendations to the Editor

Depending on the journal's editorial system, reviewers may be asked to recommend one of the following:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive revisions.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially publishable after limited corrections or clarification.
• Major Revision: Substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
• Resubmit for Review: Extensive revision is necessary and the revised manuscript should undergo further peer review.
• Reject: The manuscript has fundamental limitations or is not suitable for publication in the journal.

The recommendation should be consistent with the concerns identified in the review. Reviewers should avoid recommending rejection for problems that could reasonably be corrected through revision.

Comments to Authors and Confidential Comments to Editors

Reviewers may be provided with separate sections for comments to the authors and confidential comments to the editor.

Comments intended for authors should contain the substantive scholarly evaluation needed to understand and respond to the review.

Confidential comments to the editor may be used for sensitive ethical concerns, conflicts of interest, suspected misconduct, or other matters that should not initially be communicated directly to the authors.

Reviewers should not place major criticisms only in confidential comments while giving authors an incomplete or contradictory assessment.

Requests for Additional Citations

Reviewers may recommend additional references when they are genuinely relevant and necessary to improve the scholarly context, accuracy, or interpretation of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to their own publications, to articles from a particular journal, or to unrelated literature for the purpose of increasing citation counts.

Timeliness of Reviews

Reviewers should complete accepted review assignments within the period specified by the editorial office whenever possible.

If additional time is required, the reviewer should inform the editorial office as early as possible. If the review cannot be completed within a reasonable period, the reviewer may be asked to decline the assignment so that another reviewer can be appointed.

Review of Revised Manuscripts

Reviewers who are invited to assess a revised manuscript should consider whether the authors have adequately addressed the major points raised in the previous review.

New major requirements should generally not be introduced during subsequent rounds unless they arise from changes made during revision or from significant issues that were not reasonably identifiable during the initial review.

Respectful and Professional Communication

Reviewer comments must remain professional and respectful even where substantial weaknesses are identified.

Insulting, discriminatory, hostile, sarcastic, threatening, or personally disparaging comments are not acceptable and may be removed from a review report.

Reviewer Misconduct

Reviewer misconduct may include breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, misuse of unpublished material, impersonation, fraudulent peer review, deliberately biased evaluation, citation coercion, inappropriate contact with authors, or attempts to interfere improperly with editorial decisions.

Credible concerns regarding reviewer misconduct may be investigated by the journal and may result in removal from the reviewer database or other appropriate action.

Reviewer Recognition

The journal values the voluntary scholarly contribution made by peer reviewers. Where appropriate and consistent with reviewer confidentiality, the journal may acknowledge reviewers collectively or provide confirmation of completed reviewing activity.

Recognition of reviewer activity must not compromise the confidentiality of individual manuscripts or reveal the identity of reviewers assigned to specific submissions.

Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript rests with the journal's editorial team.

Editors may consider the content and quality of reviewer reports, differences between reviewer recommendations, the journal's aims and scope, ethical matters, and other relevant scholarly considerations when reaching a final decision.

Commitment to Responsible Peer Review

Learning Communities — International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts is committed to a peer-review process that is fair, rigorous, constructive, confidential, timely, and respectful.

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to uphold the journal's publication ethics, confidentiality requirements, conflict-of-interest standards, and expectations for responsible scholarly evaluation.