Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Integrated Elementary Education (JIEEd) is committed to publishing high-quality research that advances scholarly understanding of elementary education through integrated perspectives. JIEEd welcomes interdisciplinary studies examining the intersections of religion, spirituality, values, social-emotional competencies, and elementary education, particularly research exploring how ethical, cultural, and spiritual dimensions contribute to holistic child development and meaningful learning experiences.

The peer-review process ensures that published manuscripts demonstrate originality, conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, and meaningful contributions to elementary education research, practice, and policy. Reviewers support the journal’s mission by providing objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.

1. Purpose of Review

The primary purpose of peer review is to assess the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. Reviewer evaluations assist editors in making informed decisions regarding publication suitability and help authors strengthen the scientific quality of their research.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts as complete scientific arguments by examining the relationship among:

Research Problem → Literature Gap → Research Purpose → Methodology → Evidence → Findings → Discussion → Contribution

Reviewer judgments should be based on scholarly merit and scientific quality, regardless of authors’ identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, or personal characteristics.

2. Scope and Relevance of Manuscripts

The Journal of Integrated Elementary Education (JIEEd) welcomes interdisciplinary research examining elementary education through integrated perspectives. The journal seeks manuscripts that contribute to understanding how educational processes, learning environments, and contextual factors shape children’s holistic development and meaningful educational experiences.

The journal covers, but is not limited to, research related to religious education, faith-based schooling, religious literacy, moral and character formation, interreligious understanding, values education, and the integration of ethical and spiritual perspectives within learning environments.

JIEEd also encourages studies addressing broader dimensions of elementary education, including cultural diversity, social development, human values, transformative learning, teaching and learning practices, teacher development, inclusive education, educational technology, assessment, and educational policy.

Reviewers should determine whether manuscripts provide meaningful scholarly contributions beyond descriptive reports of local educational practices and whether they demonstrate strong conceptual positioning, rigorous evidence, and relevance to holistic child development.

3. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

3.1 Title and Keywords

Reviewers should evaluate whether the title accurately represents the scientific focus of the manuscript.

✓ Does the title clearly identify the phenomenon, context, and analytical focus?

✓ Is the title specific, informative, and supported by the evidence presented?

✓ Do keywords represent the core concepts and support academic indexing?

3.2 Abstract Quality and Consistency

The abstract should accurately represent the research problem, purpose, methods, main findings, and implications.

✓ Does the abstract clearly explain the rationale of the study?

✓ Are methods and findings consistent with the manuscript?

✓ Does it highlight meaningful findings rather than general statements?

✓ Are implications proportional to the evidence?

3.3 Research Phenomenon, Scientific Problem, Gap, and Urgency

Reviewers should evaluate whether the Introduction establishes a clear scientific reason for conducting the study.

✓ Is the educational phenomenon supported by relevant evidence?

✓ Does the manuscript identify a scientific problem rather than only a practical issue?

✓ Is the urgency of the study convincingly explained?

✓ Does the manuscript clarify what remains insufficiently understood?

3.4 Literature Gap, Theoretical Positioning, and Novelty

✓ Does the literature review synthesize previous scholarship rather than list studies?

✓ Is the research gap logically derived from existing literature?

✓ Does the manuscript provide theoretical, methodological, empirical, or contextual novelty?

✓ Is novelty supported by evidence rather than only by a new location or population?

3.5 Research Aims, Questions, and Scholarly Contribution

Reviewers should assess whether the research aims and questions clearly respond to the identified scientific gap and whether the manuscript demonstrates a meaningful contribution to elementary education scholarship.

✓ Are research objectives clearly formulated?

✓ Do research questions logically emerge from the identified problem and literature gap?

✓ Are the objectives achievable through the selected research design?

✓ Does the manuscript provide theoretical, empirical, methodological, or practical contributions?

✓ Does the study contribute to broader understanding of holistic elementary education?

3.6 Theoretical and Conceptual Foundation

Reviewers should evaluate whether the theoretical framework provides an appropriate foundation for understanding the research problem and interpreting the findings.

✓ Are key concepts clearly defined and theoretically grounded?

✓ Are theoretical perspectives relevant to the research objectives?

✓ Does the manuscript use theory to explain findings rather than only introduce concepts?

✓ Are concepts and terminology applied consistently throughout the manuscript?

3.7 Research Design and Methodology

The methodology should provide transparent and appropriate evidence to answer the research questions. Reviewers should assess whether methodological choices are justified and whether research procedures support valid interpretation.

✓ Is the research design appropriate for the research objectives?

✓ Are participants, research context, sampling procedures, and units of analysis clearly described?

✓ Are instruments, data sources, and data collection procedures adequately explained?

✓ Are validity, reliability, credibility, or trustworthiness appropriately addressed?

✓ Are qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method approaches appropriately implemented?

✓ Are data analysis procedures transparent and scientifically justified?

3.8 Research Ethics and Integrity

JIEEd emphasizes ethical research practices, particularly for studies involving children, teachers, schools, and educational communities.

✓ Is ethical approval reported when required?

✓ Are informed consent and participant protection procedures adequately described?

✓ Are confidentiality, anonymity, and responsible data management addressed?

✓ Are equity, inclusion, diversity, and cultural sensitivity appropriately considered?

✓ Is the use of artificial intelligence or research assistance transparently disclosed when relevant?

3.9 Results, Discussion, and Interpretation

Reviewers should distinguish between evidence presentation and scholarly interpretation. Results should explain what the data show, while Discussion should explain the meaning, importance, and contribution of the findings.

✓ Do the Results directly answer the research questions?

✓ Are findings clearly presented and supported by appropriate evidence?

✓ Are tables, figures, quotations, or other evidence appropriately used?

✓ Does the Discussion establish dialogue with relevant literature and theory?

✓ Does the manuscript explain why findings matter for elementary education?

✓ Are interpretations proportional to the strength of evidence?

3.10 Conclusion, Implications, and Future Research

✓ Does the conclusion synthesize the major findings rather than repeat the Results?

✓ Does it answer the research problem identified in the Introduction?

✓ Are theoretical and practical implications clearly derived from findings?

✓ Are limitations acknowledged as boundaries of interpretation?

✓ Are future research directions connected to remaining knowledge gaps?

4. Manuscript Presentation and Scholarly Quality

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript communicates its arguments clearly, coherently, and professionally for an international academic audience.

✓ Is the manuscript logically organized according to scientific writing conventions?

✓ Is academic language clear, precise, and appropriate?

✓ Are tables and figures relevant, accurate, and effectively integrated?

✓ Are references current, relevant, and appropriately connected to research claims?

✓ Is terminology consistent throughout the manuscript?

5. Confidentiality and Objectivity

Peer review is a confidential academic process. Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and all related information during and after the review process.

✓ Do not share manuscripts or review materials with others without permission.

✓ Do not use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage.

✓ Evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly quality, evidence, and contribution.

✓ Avoid judgments based on authors’ identity, institution, nationality, or personal characteristics.

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline review assignments when personal, professional, financial, institutional, or intellectual interests may influence, or appear to influence, their objectivity.

Potential conflicts of interest include:

✓ Close personal relationships with authors.

✓ Recent collaboration or co-authorship.

✓ Current or previous supervisory relationships.

✓ Financial or institutional interests related to the manuscript.

✓ Direct academic competition or significant disagreement with authors.

When uncertainty exists, reviewers should consult the editor before proceeding with the review.

7. Timeliness of Review

Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within the timeframe specified by JIEEd, generally within 2–4 weeks after accepting the review invitation.

If reviewers are unable to complete the review on time or cannot provide an objective assessment, they should promptly notify the editor for appropriate reassignment.

8. Recommendation for Editorial Decision

Reviewers should provide recommendations based on the manuscript’s scientific quality, contribution, and readiness for publication.

Accept: The manuscript meets JIEEd standards with no or minimal revision.

Minor Revision: The manuscript demonstrates sufficient contribution but requires limited clarification or improvement.

Major Revision: The manuscript has potential contribution but requires substantial improvement in conceptual framing, methodology, analysis, or interpretation.

Reject: The manuscript does not meet JIEEd standards regarding scope, originality, methodology, ethics, or scholarly contribution.

9. Guidance for Reviewer Comments

Reviewer comments should help authors improve the scientific quality of their manuscripts. Reviews should be constructive, specific, respectful, and actionable.

✓ Highlight important strengths and scholarly contributions.

✓ Identify major issues affecting scientific quality or interpretation.

✓ Provide clear suggestions for improvement.

✓ Distinguish essential revisions from optional recommendations.

✓ Avoid personal criticism, dismissive language, or unsupported judgments.

Final Remarks

By following these guidelines, reviewers contribute to maintaining the academic rigor, transparency, and international scholarly standards of the Journal of Integrated Elementary Education (JIEEd). Thoughtful and constructive peer review strengthens educational scholarship and ensures that impactful research on holistic elementary education reaches the global academic community.