Guidelines for Reviewers

The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Educational Technologies and Teacher Education – IJAIET recognizes peer review as one of the fundamental mechanisms for ensuring the quality, validation, reliability, and continuous improvement of scholarly communication.

The purpose of peer review is not merely to determine whether a manuscript should be accepted or rejected, but to contribute to its scientific, methodological, theoretical, argumentative, and editorial improvement, providing authors with a rigorous, well-founded, ethical, respectful, and constructive assessment.

IJAIET predominantly adopts double-anonymous peer review, in which the identities of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors during the editorial process.

All manuscripts approved at the initial screening or desk review stage are normally forwarded to at least two external reviewers with academic or scientific expertise compatible with the subject matter of the manuscript.

These guidelines are based on the good practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE, particularly the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the recommendations of the Council of Science Editors – CSE, the FAPESP Code of Good Scientific Practice, the CNPq Research Integrity Guidelines, and IJAIET’s policies on Ethics, Research Integrity, Open Science, and the Use of Artificial Intelligence.

1. Ethics in Peer Review

Peer review must be conducted in an independent, impartial, confidential, well-founded, respectful, and responsible manner.

Reviewers act as scientific collaborators in the editorial process and should conduct their assessments with the objective of improving the manuscript and assisting the Editor in making an informed editorial decision.

Peer review must not be used as a means of:

  • punishment;
  • embarrassment or humiliation;
  • academic dispute;
  • imposition of personal theoretical positions;
  • promotion of unnecessary self-citations;
  • scientific persecution;
  • discrimination;
  • undue interference with authors.

Scientific criticism is legitimate and necessary but must always be based on verifiable technical, methodological, theoretical, epistemological, ethical, or editorial arguments.

2. Self-Assessment of Expertise

Before accepting an invitation to review, reviewers must conduct a self-assessment of their scientific competence to evaluate the manuscript adequately.

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they possess sufficient expertise regarding:

  • the subject matter;
  • the scientific field;
  • the methodology;
  • the theoretical approach;
  • the research object;
  • relevant analytical techniques.

If reviewers determine that they do not possess sufficient expertise, they should promptly inform the Editorial Team and decline the invitation, and, where possible, suggest another qualified specialist.

Accepting a review without adequate scientific expertise may compromise the quality and legitimacy of the editorial process.

3. Timeliness

Reviewers must comply with the deadline established by IJAIET for submitting their reports.

If unable to complete the review within the requested period, reviewers should inform the Editorial Team as soon as possible.

Reviewers should decline the invitation or request an extension when:

  • they are unable to perform the review;
  • they do not have sufficient time;
  • they identify a conflict of interest;
  • they determine that they do not possess adequate expertise.

Repeated failure to respond or unjustified failure to meet deadlines may result in the suspension of future invitations to review.

4. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential and unpublished documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript;
  • forward it to third parties;
  • publicly discuss its content;
  • use unpublished data or ideas for their own research;
  • store or disseminate portions of the manuscript beyond the purposes of peer review;
  • disclose information concerning the editorial process;
  • reveal the existence of unpublished findings.

If a reviewer considers the participation of another specialist necessary, prior authorization from the Editorial Team must be obtained.

The obligation of confidentiality remains in force after the review has been completed.

5. Confidentiality and the Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must not enter, copy, upload, or otherwise disclose submitted manuscripts, excerpts, tables, figures, unpublished data, supplementary documents, or confidential information to public or external Generative Artificial Intelligence tools where adequate guarantees of confidentiality, data protection, and intellectual property protection are not ensured.

AI systems must not be used to:

  • generate the entire peer-review report;
  • replace the reviewer’s scientific reading of the manuscript;
  • decide whether a manuscript should be accepted or rejected;
  • automatically determine methodological validity;
  • process confidential manuscript content through external systems without authorization;
  • provide unpublished author data to external systems.

AI may be used only for auxiliary activities that are expressly compatible with the journal’s policies and without transferring confidential content, with the reviewer remaining fully responsible for the assessment.

Scientific judgment must remain human-centered and under human responsibility.

6. Preservation of Author Anonymity

Because IJAIET predominantly adopts double-anonymous peer review, reviewers should evaluate only properly anonymized manuscripts.

If the reviewer identifies:

  • author names;
  • affiliations;
  • acknowledgments;
  • project information;
  • other information that clearly reveals the authors’ identities,

the Editorial Team should be notified.

Reviewers must not deliberately attempt to discover the identity of the authors.

If reviewers recognize the authors because of circumstances external to the manuscript, they must assess whether this creates a conflict of interest and immediately inform the Editor.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline an invitation when an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest could compromise their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • recent collaboration with one or more authors;
  • direct professional relationships;
  • recent academic supervision;
  • significant academic disputes;
  • personal relationships;
  • direct professional or scientific competition;
  • participation in the same research project;
  • financial interests;
  • institutional relationships capable of compromising independence;
  • prior access to the manuscript under circumstances that may impair impartiality.

Mere familiarity with the subject or the fact that the manuscript cites a reviewer’s publications does not, by itself, constitute a conflict of interest.

When in doubt, reviewers should disclose the situation to the Editor before accepting the invitation.

8. No Direct Communication with Authors

During peer review, reviewers must not communicate directly with the authors unless expressly authorized by the Editorial Team.

All communications must take place through IJAIET.

This requirement protects:

  • anonymity;
  • independence of the review;
  • traceability of communications;
  • impartiality;
  • integrity of the editorial process.

9. Recognition of Sources and Relevant Literature

Reviewers may identify relevant references omitted from the manuscript, provided that such recommendations are scientifically justified and genuinely necessary for improving the manuscript.

Reviewers must not require:

  • irrelevant citations;
  • citations to their own publications without scientific justification;
  • citations intended to artificially increase citation indicators;
  • references to a particular journal without legitimate scientific need.

If reviewers identify ideas, data, or passages that may have been used without appropriate attribution, they should confidentially inform the Editorial Team.

10. Identification of Plagiarism and Other Irregularities

Reviewers must inform the Editor of any reasonable suspicion concerning:

  • plagiarism;
  • self-plagiarism;
  • duplicate publication;
  • redundant publication;
  • data fabrication;
  • falsification;
  • image manipulation;
  • serious inconsistencies;
  • nonexistent or fabricated references;
  • inappropriate use of Artificial Intelligence;
  • absence of required ethical approval;
  • authorship irregularities;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • any other potential breach of research integrity.

Whenever possible, reviewers should indicate the nature of the concern and the available evidence, without directly accusing the authors of misconduct.

Any formal investigation is the responsibility of the Editorial Team, in accordance with IJAIET’s research integrity policies.

11. Respect and Professional Language

Peer-review reports must be written in professional, respectful, objective, and academically appropriate language.

The following are unacceptable:

  • personal attacks;
  • derogatory irony;
  • aggressive language;
  • discriminatory statements;
  • humiliation;
  • comments concerning personal characteristics of authors;
  • judgments based on nationality, gender, race, institution, or academic position;
  • statements unrelated to scientific assessment.

Reviewers must criticize the manuscript and its arguments, not the individuals who produced it.

12. Respect for the Scientific Identity of the Manuscript

Reviewers should respect:

  • theoretical approaches;
  • epistemological traditions;
  • justified methodological choices;
  • scientific language;
  • authorial style;
  • diversity of scientific perspectives.

The purpose of peer review is not to transform the manuscript into the paper the reviewer would have written.

Requests for changes must have a scientific basis and effectively contribute to the validity, clarity, rigor, or relevance of the manuscript.

13. Specificity of Criticism

Generic comments such as “improve the methodology,” “revise the discussion,” “strengthen the theoretical framework,” or “the manuscript is weak,” without sufficient explanation, should be avoided.

Reviewers should indicate:

  • what the problem is;
  • where it occurs;
  • why it constitutes a problem;
  • how it may be corrected or improved, whenever possible.

Specificity makes the review useful to both authors and Editors.

14. Accuracy, Candor, and Independence

Peer-review reports must provide an honest, clear, coherent, and evidence-based assessment.

Reviewers must not:

  • artificially minimize significant problems;
  • exaggerate minor shortcomings;
  • recommend rejection because of personal preferences;
  • recommend acceptance because of relationships, prestige, or affinity;
  • allow factors unrelated to scientific merit to influence their assessment.

The review must provide the Editor with sufficient information to understand the reasons supporting the final recommendation.

15. Scientific Validity of Recommendations

All recommendations must be based on valid academic, scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial grounds.

Reviewers may recommend:

  • clarification of the research problem;
  • strengthening of the theoretical framework;
  • methodological adjustments;
  • revision of analyses;
  • deeper discussion;
  • revision of conclusions;
  • improvement of references;
  • clarification of limitations;
  • improved presentation of data;
  • revision of manuscript structure.

Reviewers must not require changes based solely on personal preference.

16. Evaluation Criteria

The primary purpose of peer review is to contribute to improving the manuscript for possible publication.

Depending on manuscript type, reviewers should consider:

  • alignment with IJAIET’s focus and scope;
  • scientific relevance;
  • originality;
  • timeliness of the topic;
  • clarity of the research problem;
  • consistency of objectives;
  • theoretical foundation;
  • methodological adequacy;
  • quality of data;
  • analysis and interpretation of results;
  • consistency among objectives, methods, results, and conclusions;
  • scientific contribution;
  • educational, technological, or social contribution;
  • interdisciplinarity, where relevant;
  • quality and currency of references;
  • research ethics;
  • transparency;
  • disclosure of AI use;
  • Open Science and research data, where applicable;
  • clarity, structure, and quality of writing.

17. Specific Aspects Related to Artificial Intelligence

When a manuscript involves Artificial Intelligence, reviewers should assess, where relevant:

  • description of the tool or model;
  • version;
  • date of access;
  • methodology of use;
  • transparency regarding prompts, when relevant;
  • validation criteria;
  • human oversight;
  • limitations;
  • biases;
  • equity issues;
  • privacy;
  • data protection;
  • ethical considerations;
  • reproducibility;
  • reliability of results;
  • educational and social impact.

The mere use of AI must not be considered evidence of scientific innovation. Scientific contribution must be assessed according to the research problem, methods, findings, and actual advancement of knowledge.

18. Constructive Peer Review

Whenever possible, the report should help make the manuscript scientifically stronger, even when the final recommendation is rejection.

This does not mean that reviewers are required to recommend publication.

A manuscript with fundamental problems may be rejected. However, the recommendation must be presented in a clear, respectful, and evidence-based manner, enabling the authors to understand the scientific reasons supporting it.

19. Possible Recommendations

At the end of the review, reviewers must select a recommendation.

Accept

The manuscript meets appropriate scientific standards and may be published in its current form or after minimal editorial adjustments.

Accept with Mandatory Revisions

The manuscript has scientific merit and may be accepted subject to specific revisions, without necessarily requiring a new full round of peer review.

Resubmit for Review

The manuscript has publication potential but requires substantial revisions.

After revision, the manuscript may undergo another round of peer review by the same or different reviewers.

Submit to Another Journal

The manuscript may have scientific merit but:

  • does not adequately fit IJAIET’s focus and scope;
  • addresses a different target readership;
  • is more appropriate for another journal.

This recommendation must be justified.

Reject

The reviewer considers that the manuscript does not meet the requirements for publication in IJAIET because of issues such as:

  • lack of original contribution;
  • fundamental methodological flaws;
  • serious inconsistencies;
  • ethical concerns;
  • lack of alignment with the journal’s scope;
  • scientific weaknesses that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision;
  • other duly justified reasons.

A recommendation for rejection must always include a clear scientific justification.

20. Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations are advisory scientific assessments and do not constitute the final decision.

The final decision rests with the responsible Editor, who may consider:

  • reviewers’ reports;
  • scientific quality;
  • focus and scope;
  • ethics;
  • research integrity;
  • disagreements between reviews;
  • additional reviews, where necessary;
  • IJAIET’s editorial policies.

The Editor may therefore accept or decline reviewers’ recommendations, provided that the editorial decision is appropriately justified.

When two reports differ substantially, a third review may be requested.

21. Subsequent Rounds of Review

When a revised manuscript is returned to reviewers, they should primarily assess:

  • whether relevant requests have been addressed;
  • whether revisions were adequately implemented;
  • whether the authors provided scientifically valid reasons for suggestions they chose not to adopt;
  • whether new problems arose as a result of the revisions.

Without a relevant scientific reason, reviewers should avoid introducing successive new requirements that could reasonably have been raised during the first review round, thereby preventing unnecessary prolongation of the process.

22. Authors’ Disagreement with Reviewers

Authors are not required to accept every reviewer suggestion automatically.

They may provide a reasoned scientific response when they disagree.

Reviewers must evaluate such responses objectively.

A scientifically justified disagreement must not be interpreted as disrespect or inappropriate resistance by the authors.

23. Recognition and Credits for Peer Review

IJAIET recognizes peer review as a qualified scientific activity essential to scholarly communication.

Researchers who benefit from the peer-review system are encouraged to contribute as reviewers, strengthening the principles of cooperation and reciprocity within the scientific community.

The journal may recognize reviewers through:

  • ad hoc reviewer certificates;
  • participation statements;
  • periodic publication of the names of reviewers who have authorized such recognition;
  • institutional acknowledgments;
  • other mechanisms compatible with the journal’s editorial and privacy policies.

Publication of a reviewer’s name as a member of the reviewer community does not identify the specific manuscript reviewed, thereby preserving the double-anonymous nature of the process.

24. Recognition and Confidentiality

The issuance of certificates or publication of reviewers’ names does not authorize disclosure of:

  • the manuscript reviewed;
  • authors’ identities;
  • the recommendation issued;
  • comments made during the review;
  • confidential information obtained through the process.

Confidentiality remains mandatory even when reviewers receive institutional recognition.

25. Reviewers and Open Science

Although IJAIET predominantly adopts double-anonymous peer review, it may offer mechanisms for open peer-review reports or reviewer identification under its Open Science Policy when there is express consent from the parties and compatibility with the editorial workflow.

No reviewer will be required to disclose their identity outside the conditions established by the journal.

26. Prohibited Conduct by Reviewers

Conduct incompatible with these Guidelines includes:

  • sharing confidential manuscripts;
  • misappropriating ideas or data;
  • using unpublished information for personal benefit;
  • contacting authors directly;
  • deliberately attempting to identify authors;
  • using offensive or discriminatory language;
  • requiring unjustified self-citations;
  • manipulating citations;
  • reviewing a manuscript despite a relevant conflict of interest;
  • delegating the review to another person without authorization;
  • uploading confidential manuscripts to public AI systems;
  • producing a peer-review report exclusively through AI;
  • falsifying identity or credentials;
  • manipulating recommendations for personal reasons;
  • deliberately delaying publication of competing research;
  • publicly disclosing allegations of misconduct before an editorial investigation;
  • using peer review to obtain academic, professional, financial, or commercial advantages.

27. Investigation of Possible Reviewer Misconduct

When a suspected violation of these Guidelines arises, IJAIET may initiate an investigation.

The process may include:

1. Recording the concern – documenting the issue and available evidence.

2. Preliminary assessment – evaluating the plausibility and severity of the allegation.

3. Preservation of records – retaining peer-review reports, platform records, communications, and other evidence.

4. Communication with the reviewer – where appropriate, presenting the concerns and providing an opportunity for clarification.

5. Editorial assessment – evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editorial team without conflicts of interest.

6. Decision – adoption of measures proportionate to the nature of the findings.

7. Institutional communication – in serious cases, notification of the reviewer’s institution or another competent authority.

28. Possible Measures and Sanctions

Depending on the nature, severity, intent, impact, and recurrence of the conduct, IJAIET may apply:

  1. guidance;
  2. warning;
  3. disregard of the peer-review report;
  4. replacement of the reviewer;
  5. temporary suspension of future invitations;
  6. removal from the reviewer database;
  7. temporary or permanent exclusion from reviewing;
  8. restriction from serving in an editorial capacity;
  9. notification of the affiliated institution;
  10. notification of the funding agency or competent authority, where applicable;
  11. application of IJAIET’s research integrity policies;
  12. other measures necessary to protect the integrity of the editorial process.

Cases involving misappropriation of data, breach of confidentiality, fraud, editorial manipulation, or other potential research misconduct may be referred to the institution responsible for formal investigation.

29. Peer Review Form

Reviews must be prepared using the specific form provided by IJAIET for each manuscript category.

The form guides reviewers through the principal scientific, methodological, ethical, and editorial criteria.

The form is available for consultation and download at:

IJAIET Peer Review Form – View and Download

Completion of the form does not prevent reviewers from providing additional evidence-based comments when necessary for a comprehensive assessment.

30. Reviewer Responsibility Statement

By accepting an invitation and completing a review, the reviewer declares that they:

possess appropriate scientific expertise to perform the assessment; have not identified a conflict of interest capable of compromising impartiality, or have previously disclosed any potential conflict to the Editor; have preserved manuscript confidentiality; have not used unpublished content for personal or third-party benefit; have conducted the review independently, ethically, respectfully, and on scientific grounds; have not improperly delegated their responsibility to third parties or Artificial Intelligence systems; and have reported to the Editorial Team any suspected irregularities or breaches of research integrity identified during the review.

31. Fundamental Principles for IJAIET Reviewers

Competence: review only manuscripts for which the reviewer possesses appropriate expertise.

Impartiality: assess scientific merit independently of personal preferences or interests.

Confidentiality: fully protect submitted content.

Timeliness: comply with deadlines or promptly communicate any inability to do so.

Transparency: disclose conflicts of interest.

Respect: provide scientific criticism without personal attacks.

Specificity: provide clear and well-founded observations.

Constructiveness: contribute to manuscript improvement.

Integrity: report suspected irregularities.

Independence: prevent external influences from affecting scientific judgment.

Human responsibility: do not transfer responsibility for peer review to AI systems.

Scientific rigor: base recommendations on verifiable academic criteria.

32. Institutional References

COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics

COPE – Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Council of Science Editors – Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications

FAPESP – Good Scientific Practice

CNPq – Research Integrity Guidelines

 

Copyright Statement

© IJAIET – International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Educational Technologies and Teacher Education / Editora Ibero-Americana de Educação. All rights reserved regarding the wording, organization, systematization, and institutional presentation of these editorial policies, without prejudice to third-party rights and content from duly identified external sources.

The full or substantial reproduction, adaptation, or institutional use of these texts by third parties requires prior authorization, except within the limits legally permitted for quotation, academic reference, and other uses authorized by applicable law.

 

The Editors