EVALUATION CRITERIA

Journal of Integrated Elementary Education (JIEEd)

1. Purpose and Evaluation Principles

The Journal of Integrated Elementary Education (JIEEd) is committed to publishing scientifically rigorous, original, ethically responsible, and clearly communicated research that advances knowledge in elementary education.

This policy establishes the criteria used by editors and peer reviewers to assess the suitability and scholarly quality of submitted manuscripts.

JIEEd evaluates manuscripts based on their relevance, originality, theoretical foundation, methodological rigor, quality of evidence, critical interpretation, scholarly contribution, academic presentation, and research integrity.

Manuscript evaluation is guided by the following principles:

• Scientific merit: Decisions are based on the quality and significance of the research.

• Methodological appropriateness: Research is evaluated according to its objectives, design, and methodological tradition.

• Transparency: Evaluation criteria are communicated clearly to authors and reviewers.

• Fairness: Manuscripts are assessed without inappropriate personal, institutional, or geographical bias.

• Research integrity: Ethical compliance and the reliability of scholarly evidence are essential.

• Constructive assessment: Reviewer comments should identify substantive strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement.

• Editorial independence: Final publication decisions remain the responsibility of authorized editors.

These criteria apply to both Original Research Articles and Review Articles, with additional requirements appropriate to each article type.

2. Stages of Manuscript Evaluation

JIEEd evaluates manuscripts through two principal stages: initial editorial screening and external peer review.

2.1 Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary evaluation by the editorial office and an authorized editor.

This stage determines whether a submission meets the journal's essential requirements and demonstrates sufficient scholarly potential to proceed to external review.

The initial assessment considers:

1. Alignment with the journal's Aims and Scope.

2. Eligibility under the accepted article categories.

3. Compliance with the Author Guidelines and Article Template.

4. Clarity and significance of the research problem.

5. Evidence of originality and scholarly contribution.

6. Basic methodological adequacy.

7. Academic writing quality and manuscript organization.

8. Research integrity and ethical compliance.

9. Completeness of required declarations and submission information.

A manuscript may be returned for preliminary correction or declined without external review when essential requirements are not met.

2.2 External Peer Review

Manuscripts suitable for external assessment undergo single-anonymous (single-blind) peer review by at least two qualified, independent reviewers.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's scientific strengths and limitations and provide evidence-based recommendations.

Reviewer reports inform editorial decisions but do not independently determine acceptance or rejection.

2.3 Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts are evaluated to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the scientific and editorial concerns identified in previous assessments.

Additional independent review may be requested when necessary.

3. Initial Submission Requirements

The following technical and administrative requirements are considered during preliminary screening.

Component	JIEEd Requirement
Accepted Article Types	Original Research Article and Review Article
Language	Academic English
Manuscript Format	Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx)
Article Template	Official JIEEd Article Template
Manuscript Length	5,000–7,000 words, excluding references
Abstract	150–220 words
Keywords	3–5
Main Text Format	Helvetica 12 pt, 1.15 line spacing, A4, 3 cm margins, justified
Citation Style	APA 7th Edition
References	At least 30 references
Recent Scholarly Literature	At least 80% from reputable scholarly journals published within the preceding five years
Similarity Screening	Turnitin, maximum technical similarity threshold of 20%, subject to editorial assessment
Originality	No previous publication or simultaneous consideration by another journal
Ethical Requirements	Relevant approvals, permissions, protections, and declarations

These requirements support consistency and professional presentation.

Technical compliance alone does not establish scientific quality or guarantee acceptance.

Similarly, originality and integrity concerns must be evaluated substantively rather than determined solely by automated screening results.

4. Core Scientific Evaluation Criteria

JIEEd applies the following principal scientific assessment dimensions.

Evaluation Dimension	Principal Evaluation Question
1. Relevance and Significance	Does the manuscript address an important issue within elementary education?
2. Originality and Contribution	Does the work offer a meaningful contribution beyond existing scholarship?
3. Research Problem and Objectives	Are the research problem, questions, and objectives clear and appropriately focused?
4. Theoretical and Literature Foundation	Is relevant scholarship critically synthesized and appropriately integrated?
5. Methodological Rigor	Are the research design and procedures appropriate, transparent, and adequately justified?
6. Results and Evidence	Are findings accurately reported and supported by credible evidence?
7. Discussion and Interpretation	Are findings critically interpreted and connected with previous scholarship?
8. Conclusion and Implications	Are conclusions justified, meaningful, and proportionate to the findings?
9. Academic Presentation	Is the manuscript coherent, well-organized, and professionally presented?
10. Research Integrity	Does the work comply with applicable scientific and ethical requirements?

The relative importance of these dimensions depends on the manuscript type, research design, and nature of the scientific contribution.

JIEEd does not apply an automatic publication decision based solely on the number of criteria satisfied.

5. Detailed Scientific Assessment

5.1 Relevance and Educational Significance

The manuscript must address a question or problem relevant to integrated elementary education.

Reviewers consider whether the research:

• Addresses a meaningful educational issue.

• Falls within the journal's Aims and Scope.

• Contributes to scholarly understanding of teaching, learning, child development, assessment, curriculum, teacher professionalism, or related educational phenomena.

• Explains why the problem matters beyond its immediate research setting.

• Offers implications relevant to educational knowledge or practice.

A study's relevance should be justified through scientific reasoning and contextual evidence, not merely by its location in an elementary school.

5.2 Originality and Scholarly Contribution

The manuscript must demonstrate a meaningful contribution to existing research.

Reviewers assess whether:

• The research gap is supported by relevant literature.

• The manuscript addresses an unresolved question or limitation.

• The contribution is clearly identified.

• The findings, synthesis, or methodological approach provide a useful new understanding.

• Claims of novelty are proportionate to the available evidence.

Contributions may be theoretical, empirical, methodological, contextual, or practical.

Using a familiar teaching strategy in a different school does not independently establish significant novelty.

A contextual contribution is meaningful when it helps explain, challenge, extend, or refine broader educational understanding.

5.3 Research Problem and Objectives

The research problem must be clearly formulated and aligned with the study's objectives and methodological approach.

Reviewers consider whether:

• The problem is specific and researchable.

• The objectives or research questions are clearly stated.

• The research design can realistically address the stated questions.

• The manuscript maintains consistency between objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.

Ambiguous research questions or objectives that cannot be answered by the reported methods constitute substantive scientific weaknesses.

5.4 Theoretical and Literature Foundation

The manuscript should demonstrate critical engagement with relevant scholarly literature.

Reviewers evaluate whether:

• Relevant theoretical or conceptual perspectives are identified.

• Previous research is analyzed and synthesized.

• Important agreements, contradictions, and limitations are considered.

• The literature supports the research gap and objectives.

• Theory is meaningfully connected with the research design or interpretation.

• References are relevant, reliable, and appropriately current.

A literature review should not merely summarize studies in sequence without developing a coherent scientific argument.

Foundational sources older than five years may be retained when scientifically justified.

5.5 Methodological Rigor

The research methodology must be appropriate to the objectives and sufficiently transparent for scholarly evaluation.

JIEEd recommends the WHAT–WHY–HOW–QUALITY framework.

Element	Evaluation Focus
WHAT	Is the specific research design or procedure clearly identified?
WHY	Is the methodological choice justified in relation to the research question?
HOW	Are participants, sources, instruments, procedures, and analyses sufficiently explained?
QUALITY	Are relevant validity, reliability, credibility, trustworthiness, or other quality safeguards demonstrated?

Reviewers should assess methodological quality according to the study design.

For example, qualitative studies should be evaluated using appropriate qualitative criteria rather than being required to satisfy statistical procedures designed for quantitative research.

5.6 Results and Quality of Evidence

The Results section must report findings accurately and systematically.

Reviewers assess whether:

• Results directly address the research questions.

• Findings are supported by adequate evidence.

• Analytical procedures are appropriately applied.

• Tables and figures communicate the evidence clearly.

• Uncertainty, inconsistencies, or unexpected findings are reported when relevant.

• Interpretations do not exceed the available evidence.

Quantitative, qualitative, and review-based findings should be reported according to the standards appropriate to their methodologies.

5.7 Discussion and Critical Interpretation

The Discussion must explain the meaning and significance of the findings.

Reviewers consider whether the manuscript:

• Identifies and interprets its principal findings.

• Relates findings to relevant theories and previous research.

• Explains agreements, contradictions, or unexpected results.

• Considers alternative interpretations when appropriate.

• Identifies a defensible scholarly contribution.

• Explains relevant educational implications.

• Acknowledges significant methodological limitations.

JIEEd recommends the Point–Reason–Evidence–Conclusion (PREC) framework as a useful approach to organizing analytical discussion.

The Discussion should extend beyond repeating the Results.

5.8 Conclusion and Educational Implications

A strong conclusion synthesizes the principal findings and clarifies their significance.

Reviewers assess whether:

• The conclusion addresses the research objectives.

• Principal claims are supported by the findings.

• The scientific contribution is explicitly communicated.

• Practical or theoretical implications are proportionate to the evidence.

• Relevant limitations are acknowledged.

• Future research directions are meaningful rather than generic.

Conclusions should not introduce new data or claim causal relationships that the research design cannot establish.

5.9 Academic Writing and Presentation

The manuscript should communicate scientific arguments clearly and professionally.

Assessment includes:

• Logical organization.

• Coherence between manuscript sections.

• Precision of terminology.

• Appropriate academic English.

• Consistency of headings and abbreviations.

• Quality and relevance of tables and figures.

• Accurate citations and references.

• Compliance with journal formatting requirements.

Language quality matters because unclear writing can obstruct scientific evaluation.

However, editorial assessment should distinguish correctable language or presentation problems from fundamental weaknesses in scientific quality.

5.10 Research Ethics and Integrity

The manuscript must comply with applicable research and publication-ethics requirements.

Reviewers and editors assess relevant matters, including:

• Originality and proper attribution.

• Ethical approval was required.

• Informed consent and participant protection.

• Confidentiality and data management.

• Appropriate authorship.

• Funding and competing-interest disclosures.

• Responsible AI use.

• Transparent and accurate research reporting.

Ethical problems should be evaluated according to their nature and seriousness.

A failure to satisfy an essential ethical requirement may prevent publication regardless of the manuscript's strengths in other areas.

6. Specific Criteria for Original Research Articles

Original Research Articles are evaluated according to the scientific quality of their empirical investigation.

6.1 Research Design

The selected design must be suitable for the research problem and clearly justified.

Reviewers assess whether the study appropriately uses a quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, or other relevant educational research design.

6.2 Participants, Sampling, and Research Context

The manuscript should describe relevant participants, sampling procedures, inclusion criteria, and contextual characteristics.

The adequacy of a sample or case selection must be evaluated in relation to the research design and its intended claims.

Sample size alone does not establish scientific quality.

6.3 Instruments and Data Sources

Reviewers assess the suitability and quality of research instruments, assessment tools, interview protocols, observations, or other data sources.

Validity, reliability, credibility, or other methodological safeguards must be described when relevant.

6.4 Data Collection and Analysis

Procedures must be reported transparently.

For quantitative research, reviewers may consider statistical assumptions, effect estimates, confidence intervals, measurement quality, and potential bias.

For qualitative research, reviewers may consider data adequacy, coding transparency, reflexivity, credibility, and the relationship between participant evidence and interpretation.

For mixed-methods research, reviewers should examine how the different forms of evidence are integrated.

6.5 Scientific Claims

Claims about effectiveness, improvement, relationships, or causal effects must be consistent with the research design and evidence.

A descriptive study should not make unsupported causal conclusions.

An intervention study should describe the intervention and evaluation procedures sufficiently for readers to assess the findings.

7. Specific Criteria for Review Articles

Review Articles are evaluated according to the clarity, transparency, rigor, and contribution of their evidence synthesis.

7.1 Review Question and Design

The manuscript must present a clear review question and identify the review methodology.

The selected review design must be appropriate for the intended objectives.

7.2 Literature Search Strategy

Reviewers assess whether the search process is transparent and sufficiently comprehensive for the claimed review design.

Relevant information includes:

• Databases and information sources.

• Search terms and Boolean operators.

• Search dates.

• Search restrictions.

• Supplementary search procedures.

7.3 Eligibility and Study Selection

The manuscript should explain the inclusion and exclusion criteria and describe how relevant studies were selected.

Systematic reviews should report study-selection procedures transparently and include an appropriate flow diagram.

7.4 Data Extraction and Critical Appraisal

Reviewers should consider whether relevant study information was extracted systematically and whether methodological quality or risk of bias was assessed where appropriate.

7.5 Evidence Synthesis

The review must identify meaningful patterns, contradictions, conceptual relationships, methodological limitations, or research gaps.

It should produce a defensible synthesis rather than a collection of individual article summaries.

7.6 Reporting Standards

Appropriate reporting guidance should be applied according to the review design.

This may include:

• PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews.

• PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews.

A manuscript must not claim compliance with systematic review procedures unless those procedures were actually undertaken and adequately reported.

8. Research Ethics in Elementary Education

JIEEd places particular emphasis on ethical considerations in studies involving elementary school students.

Reviewers and editors should evaluate whether research has adequately protected participants' rights, safety, dignity, and privacy.

Relevant considerations include:

• Institutional ethical approval was required.

• Appropriate school or institutional permissions.

• Parental or guardian consent, where applicable.

• Age-appropriate child assent.

• Voluntary participation.

• Confidential handling of educational and personal information.

• Protection against coercion or inappropriate influence.

• Ethical reporting and publication of photographs, recordings, and student data.

The research setting may create unequal power relationships between teachers, researchers, and students.

Authors should explain relevant safeguards when these relationships could influence participation or data collection.

Ethically justified restrictions on access to confidential research data should not automatically be treated as evidence of inadequate scientific quality.

9. Evaluation of References and Scholarly Documentation

References must substantively support the research argument.

JIEEd requires APA 7th Edition, at least 30 references, and at least 80% of references from reputable scholarly journals published within the preceding five years, consistent with the Author Guidelines.

Reviewers should evaluate reference quality as well as technical compliance.

Key considerations include:

• Relevance to the research problem.

• Appropriate use of foundational scholarship.

• Coverage of significant recent studies.

• Accuracy of bibliographic details.

• Authenticity of cited sources.

• Correspondence between in-text citations and the reference list.

• Direct support for the claims being made.

A large number of references does not automatically indicate a strong theoretical foundation.

Authors should avoid unnecessary citations, fabricated sources, and citation practices intended to manipulate scholarly metrics.

10. Evaluation of Originality and Similarity

JIEEd uses Turnitin for manuscript similarity screening.

The journal applies a technical maximum similarity threshold of 20%, subject to contextual editorial assessment.

The evaluation considers the nature of textual overlap, attribution, source material, and possible duplicate publication.

A similarity score is not a direct measure of scientific novelty and does not independently establish plagiarism.

A manuscript can have a low similarity percentage while offering little original scholarly contribution.

Conversely, similarity reports must be interpreted carefully before determining whether the identified overlap constitutes inappropriate copying.

Scientific originality and textual similarity are therefore evaluated as related but distinct considerations.

11. Reviewer Assessment and Reporting

Reviewers should provide balanced, specific, and evidence-based evaluations.

A useful review report includes:

1. A brief summary of the manuscript.

2. An assessment of its principal strengths.

3. Major scientific concerns require substantive attention.

4. Minor comments concerning clarity or presentation.

5. An overall recommendation consistent with the written assessment.

11.1 Major Concerns

Major concerns are issues that substantially affect research validity, interpretability, originality, or scholarly contribution.

Examples include unsuitable research design, insufficient evidence, serious analytical weaknesses, or conclusions unsupported by the findings.

11.2 Minor Concerns

Minor concerns are issues that can be addressed without fundamentally changing the scientific basis of the manuscript.

Examples include limited clarification, formatting inconsistencies, unclear terminology, and correctable language problems.

11.3 Assessment Matrix

The following qualitative descriptors may support a consistent review process.

Assessment	Interpretation
Meets Expectations	The criterion is adequately satisfied.
Partially Meets Expectations	The criterion is addressed but requires clarification or improvement.
Does Not Meet Expectations	The criterion has a significant weakness or remains inadequately addressed.
Not Applicable	The criterion does not apply to the research design or manuscript type.

These descriptors are recommended for transparent assessment and do not establish a mandatory numerical scoring system.

Any formal rating scale or weighting must follow the review form approved and implemented by the journal.

12. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial outcomes.

Recommendation	Evaluation Basis
Accept	The manuscript meets essential scientific and ethical requirements and requires no substantive revision.
Minor Revision	The manuscript is scientifically sound but requires limited correction or clarification.
Major Revision	The manuscript has scholarly potential but requires substantial improvements.
Reject	Fundamental scientific, methodological, scope-related, or ethical deficiencies prevent publication in its present form.

12.1 Accept

Acceptance may be recommended when the manuscript demonstrates adequate originality, methodological rigor, reliable evidence, meaningful contribution, and ethical compliance.

12.2 Minor Revision

Minor revision is appropriate when limited modifications are required without substantially changing the research design, central findings, or conclusions.

12.3 Major Revision

Major revision is appropriate when significant improvements are necessary, but the manuscript has a potentially publishable scholarly contribution.

A major revision recommendation does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

12.4 Reject

Rejection may be recommended when the manuscript has fundamental weaknesses that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision or does not meet the journal's essential standards.

The recommendation must be supported by clear scholarly reasoning.

13. Editorial Decision-Making

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor, taking into account:

• The manuscript's scientific quality.

• The relevance and significance of its contribution.

• The quality and reasoning of reviewer reports.

• Compliance with research-ethics requirements.

• The adequacy of revisions and author responses.

• The journal's Aims and Scope.

• Any relevant concerns affecting the integrity of the publication process.

When reviewer recommendations differ, the editor may examine the reasoning behind each report, seek clarification, or appoint an additional independent reviewer.

A numerical majority of reviewer recommendations does not automatically determine the editorial outcome.

The editor must exercise independent, reasoned scholarly judgment.

14. Fairness, Confidentiality, and Competing Interests

JIEEd evaluates manuscripts without inappropriate discrimination based on authors' nationality, geographical origin, gender, religion, institutional prestige, professional status, or other characteristics unrelated to scientific quality.

Editors and reviewers must disclose and appropriately manage competing interests.

Individuals with significant conflicts must not participate in the relevant evaluation or decision-making process.

Submitted manuscripts and confidential editorial information must be protected throughout peer review.

14.1 Artificial Intelligence

In accordance with JIEEd's AI Use Policy, peer reviewers must not use generative AI to analyze, evaluate, summarize, or assess submitted manuscripts or to generate peer-review comments and recommendations.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content to AI applications.

All evaluations must reflect independent human scholarly judgment.

14.2 Evaluation of Editorial Team Submissions

Manuscripts submitted by editorial team members must undergo independent handling and the same scientific and ethical evaluation standards applied to other submissions.

Editorial affiliation must not provide preferential treatment.

15. Revisions and Reassessment

When revisions are requested, authors should provide:

1. A revised manuscript.

2. A point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

3. Clear identification of substantive changes.

4. Scientific justification for any recommendations not adopted.

Reviewers and editors assess whether the revision adequately resolves the identified concerns.

Authors may disagree with reviewer suggestions when they provide reasonable scientific justification.

Later review rounds should focus primarily on unresolved concerns, newly introduced problems, or significant issues that were not reasonably identifiable during the previous assessment.

Additional requirements should be scientifically justified and proportionate.

Failure to address essential methodological, analytical, or ethical concerns may result in rejection.

16. Transparency, Appeals, and Policy Review

JIEEd is committed to communicating editorial decisions clearly and providing authors with appropriate information about required revisions or reasons for rejection.

Authors may appeal a decision when they identify substantial factual errors, scientific misunderstandings, conflicts of interest, or procedural irregularities.

Appeals are handled in accordance with the journal's Appeals and Complaints Policy.

JIEEd periodically reviews its evaluation criteria to maintain consistency with developments in elementary education research, methodological standards, research integrity, and scholarly publishing.

Substantive changes will be communicated through the official journal website.

17. Related Policies and Official Resources

Related Journal Policies

• Aims and Scope

• Author Guidelines

• Reviewer Guidelines

• Peer Review Policy

• Publication Ethics

• Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

• Research Data Policy

• Competing Interests Policy

• AI Use Policy

• Appeals and Complaints Policy

Methodological and Ethical Guidance

1. COPE — Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

2. COPE — Core Practices

3. PRISMA 2020 Statement

4. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)