REVIEWER GUIDELINES

Education in the 21st Century operates a double-blind peer review; the stages and timelines of the process are described in the Peer Review Process. These guidelines follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practices.

1. ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Confidentiality. The manuscript is a strictly privileged document. Reviewers must not share it with colleagues or use it for teaching purposes. Uploading the manuscript, or any portion of it, to generative artificial intelligence tools is expressly prohibited: it constitutes a severe breach of confidentiality and of the authors' intellectual property rights. The review report itself must likewise be written without the assistance of such tools. Confidentiality continues after the review is submitted; reviewers should delete their copy of the manuscript once the assignment is complete and must not use its content, data or ideas in their own work before publication.

Conflict of interest. If reviewers believe they can identify the author or authors, or if they have any competing financial, institutional, collaborative or personal interest, they must inform the Editor-in-Chief at once and decline the assignment. Should the identity of an author become apparent during the review, this must not influence the assessment, and the editorial office must be notified.

Objectivity. Assessment is directed at the work, never at the person. Personal criticism of the author is ethically unacceptable. Recommendations to cite the reviewer's own publications may be made only where they are genuinely necessary to the argument, and must be justified.

Prompt response. Invitations should be accepted or declined within three working days, so that the editorial office can approach another reviewer without delay.

2. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW

Compliance with formatting requirements — margins, spacing, headings, reference style, digital identifiers, the completeness of the declarations — is verified by the editorial office in a separate technical check before the manuscript reaches the reviewer. Reviewers are therefore asked to concentrate on the substance of the work, and need not correct language or layout. Where formatting problems impede understanding, it is enough to note this in general terms.

The journal publishes empirical, theoretical, review-based, methodological and case-based contributions on equal terms. The type of contribution is declared by the author and is stated to the reviewer. The manuscript must be assessed against the standards of its own type, not against those of an empirical study: the absence of statistical analysis in a theoretical or review article is not a deficiency, and a conceptual model is a legitimate result. The structure required of each type is set out in Section 4 of the Instructions for Authors.

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Originality and contribution. Does the manuscript address a substantial gap? Are the research questions, or the conceptual problem, clearly articulated and derived from that gap? Is the contribution distinguishable from what has already been published?

Coverage of the literature. Does the review of scholarship cover the field adequately, critically and with sufficient currency, including recent international peer-reviewed work? The journal sets no minimum number of sources: relevance and quality are what count. Reviewers should draw attention both to substantial omissions and to citations that appear to have been added without bearing on the argument, as well as to any sign of citation manipulation.

Method or approach. Is the design, or the analytical procedure, described transparently and appropriate to the questions posed? For empirical work: are the sampling, instruments, reliability and validity evidence, and procedures sufficient for the study to be repeated? For theoretical and review work: are the corpus, the selection criteria and the analytical steps stated with equal clarity? For reviews: is the search strategy reproducible and reported according to a recognised standard such as PRISMA?

Results. Are the findings presented in the form appropriate to the declared type — statistical analysis, thematic or categorical analysis with supporting material, or the developed model or framework — and kept free of interpretation? Are tables and figures necessary, self-explanatory and formatted according to APA 7?

Discussion and conclusion. Do the authors return to their research questions? Are the findings interpreted within the cited scholarship rather than merely restated? Are the theoretical and practical implications, the limitations and the directions for further research examined honestly? Do the conclusions remain within what the material actually supports?

Integrity. Does every citation support the specific claim attached to it? Are the sources verifiable? Reviewers who suspect plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication or manipulation, undisclosed use of generative artificial intelligence, or an ethical problem concerning human participants must report this to the Editor-in-Chief rather than address it in the report to the authors; such cases are handled under the COPE flowcharts and the journal's Publication Ethics.

4. THE REVIEW REPORT

The report is addressed to the authors and comprises: a short summary of the work as the reviewer understands it, which allows misunderstandings to be identified; major points, numbered, each stating the problem and what would resolve it; minor points, numbered separately; and, where appropriate, confidential remarks to the editor. Every criticism should be specific enough for the author to act upon it, and should indicate the section or page concerned.

The recommendation is one of: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. The recommendation is advisory; the decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

5. TIMELINE

Reviewers are asked to complete the assessment within 45 days of accepting the invitation. If this cannot be met, the editorial office must be informed immediately so that the manuscript is not delayed. Reviewers invited to assess a revised version are asked to reply within 21 days, confining their attention to the changes made and to the authors' point-by-point response.

6. RECOGNITION

The journal acknowledges the work of its reviewers. At the author's request the review record may be confirmed in writing, and the annual list of reviewers is published without linking any reviewer to a particular manuscript.