Reviewer Guidance
Our Developmental Reviewing Approach
JoSTLE takes a developmental approach to peer review. Our starting position is not "Should this be rejected?" but "How can this paper be strengthened for publication?" As a reviewer, your role is to help authors improve their work. Many submissions may come from colleagues who are new to scholarly writing, educational research, or publishing. Constructive, supportive feedback is therefore essential.
Wherever possible:
- Identify strengths as well as areas for improvement.
- Be specific about what could be developed.
- Suggest solutions, not just problems.
- Focus on helping the author move towards publication.
- Recommend rejection only where significant concerns cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.
Reviews should be professional, respectful, and evidence informed.
What Reviewers Should Consider
Relevance: Is the paper relevant to teaching, learning, assessment, student experience, educational development, or the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning? Will it be of interest and value to JoSTLE readers?
Clarity: Is the purpose of the paper clear? Is the writing understandable and well organised? Could any sections be explained more clearly?
Scholarly Quality: Does the paper engage appropriately with relevant literature, policy, practice, or evidence? Are claims supported by cited evidence? Are references used appropriately?
Method and Evidence (where applicable): Is the approach described clearly enough to understand what was done? Are conclusions supported by the evidence presented? Are ethical considerations addressed where relevant?
Contribution: Does the paper offer useful insights, learning, reflection, innovation, or evidence? What is the key contribution to practice or understanding?
Development Potential: Can the paper be improved through revision? What are the most important changes that would strengthen it?
Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should notify the editors of any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality and, where appropriate, decline the review invitation.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review
JoSTLE supports the responsible and transparent use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in scholarly publishing. Consistent with the principle that accountability for peer review rests with the reviewer, reviewers must undertake the review themselves and remain responsible for all comments and recommendations provided. GenAI tools must not be used to analyse a manuscript, evaluate its quality, generate review comments, or make publication recommendations. Human judgement must remain central to the review process.
Reviewers may use GenAI tools to improve the clarity, readability, grammar, or tone of feedback they have already written themselves. Any use of GenAI should be limited to editorial support rather than scholarly evaluation or decision-making.
To protect author confidentiality and intellectual property, reviewers must not upload, copy, paste, summarise, or otherwise share submitted manuscripts, extracts, figures, tables, data, or supplementary materials with any GenAI system or third-party platform without the explicit permission of the journal and the author(s). Submitted manuscripts remain confidential documents and must be treated accordingly.
Where reviewers are uncertain whether a particular use of GenAI is appropriate, they should err on the side of caution and refrain from using the tool. Transparency, confidentiality, human accountability, and scholarly integrity should guide all review activities.
This aligns with the sector recognised principles of authorship in Crawford et al. (2026), particularly the commitments relating to human centrality in peer review, confidentiality, transparency, and the non-transferability of accountability.
Reviewer Checklist
Please consider the following when completing your review:
Overall
☐ The submission fits the journal scope.
☐ The main purpose or argument is clear.
☐ The paper makes a useful contribution.
Writing and Structure
☐ The paper is well organised.
☐ The writing is clear and accessible.
☐ The title and abstract accurately reflect the content.
Evidence and Scholarship
☐ Relevant literature or evidence is used appropriately.
☐ Claims are supported by evidence.
☐ References are appropriate and accurate.
Ethics and Integrity
☐ Ethical considerations are addressed where required.
☐ There are no obvious concerns regarding academic integrity.
Developmental Feedback
☐ I have identified strengths in the paper.
☐ I have provided constructive suggestions for improvement.
☐ My feedback focuses on helping the author develop the manuscript.
Recommendation
☐ Accept
☐ Accept with minor revisions
☐ Revise and resubmit
☐ Reject (only where concerns are unlikely to be addressed through revision and where the reasons are clear to editors)
Reviewer Integrity and Confidentiality
☐ I completed the review using my own scholarly judgement.
☐ I did not use GenAI to analyse the manuscript, generate review comments, or make publication recommendations.
☐ Any GenAI use was limited to improving the clarity, grammar, or presentation of feedback I had written myself.
☐ I did not upload, copy, paste, summarise, or share any part of the manuscript, data, figures, tables, or supplementary materials with a GenAI tool or external platform.
☐ I have maintained the confidentiality of the submission throughout the review process.
☐ I have declared any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
Reviewer Declaration
☐ I confirm that this review represents my own independent assessment of the manuscript and that any use of GenAI was limited to editorial assistance (for example, grammar or style improvements) and not the evaluation of the submission itself.
