Notice: WP_Service_Worker_Caching_Routes::register was called incorrectly. The plugins configuration key is obsolete. Define Workbox plugin configuration at the top level. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 0.6.) in /www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5311 Notice: WP_Service_Worker_Caching_Routes::register was called incorrectly. The plugins configuration key is obsolete. Define Workbox plugin configuration at the top level. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 0.6.) in /www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5311 Notice: WP_Service_Worker_Caching_Routes::register was called incorrectly. The plugins configuration key is obsolete. Define Workbox plugin configuration at the top level. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 0.6.) in /www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5311 Notice: WP_Service_Worker_Caching_Routes::register was called incorrectly. The plugins configuration key is obsolete. Define Workbox plugin configuration at the top level. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 0.6.) in /www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5311 Reviewers - Digi-Courses

Reviewer’s source

Please consult the information pages for specific submission requirements and journal policies.

Are you volunteering for a review, then send in your review right here!

This peer review process is based on IJELP. The reviews will be made anonymous by the editors before sending this review to the author.

    Title of the article

    Characters left: 0

    1.Originality and relevance:
    Can the contribution lead to new and/or policy-, socially-, legally relevant insights for the reader of IJELP (does the author formulate an up-to-date contribution)? Does it bring clarity to a relevant legal or policy-relevant point of discussion and/or does it clarify a socially important issue from a legal or policy-relevant point of view?

    Characters left: 100

    Does the contribution contain a personal statement of the author (and is this sufficiently substantiated in that case); are any existing statements sufficiently and correctly outlined?

    Characters left: 100

    2. Profundity and scientific approach:
    Has the contribution been worked out in sufficient depth (possibly by means of a fundamental scientific analysis or by implementing existing legislation, case law or legal scholars); is the educational vision/policy not always worked out from a legal or policy perspective but sometimes also from a socio-ideological perspective?

    Characters left: 100

    Has the contribution been worked out in sufficient depth (possibly by means of a fundamental scientific analysis or by implementing existing legislation, case law or legal scholars); is the educational vision/policy not always worked out from a legal or policy perspective but sometimes also from a socio-ideological perspective?

    Characters left: 100

    Is the subject of the contribution - taking into account the nature and the demarcation as formulated and substantiated by the author - treated in a complete and sufficiently nuanced manner (no gaps)? Are the subjects/articles adequately framed and/or demarcated?

    Characters left: 100

    Is sufficient attention paid to the prevailing jurisprudence, legal scholars, legislation or emerging legislation (government discourse, what are the plans for the future, etc.)? Have the relevant sources been consulted and correctly processed? Did the analysis take sufficient account of current source material?

    Characters left: 100

    3. Form:
    Is the contribution logically structured and balanced? Do the conclusions flow (logically) from the author's argument? Does the structure support the author's argument?

    Characters left: 100

    Is the length of the contribution adequate?

    Characters left: 100

    Is the contribution written in correct and fluent English? Or French?

    Characters left: 100

    Are the scientific references correctly displayed?

    Characters left: 100

    Conclusion/verdict


    Characters left: 100

    Date of peer review

    By using this form you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website.

    The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of The International Journal for Education Law and Policy (IJELP)  is based on the guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). As such, this journal follow the next two documents: Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors and Code of conduct for journal publishers.  The relevant responsibilities/duties and expectations of authors, reviewers, and editors of the journal are as detailed below. You should however always refer to the two documents listed above for full details.

    Responsibilities of Authors

    By submitting a manuscript to IJELP, the author(s) authorize that the manuscript is their own, original work and that it has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication (in part or in full) elsewhere in any journal. authors also warrant that the sources of any ideas and/or words in the manuscript that are not their own have been properly attributed through appropriate citations and/or quotes.

     

    Authors should not be supposed to normally submit or publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in multiple journals. Such redundant publications are considered as constitute unethical publishing behavior, and if discovered may result in a manuscript under consideration will be rejected, or a published article will get retracted.

    Authors of the manuscript should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The scientific data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references so as to permit the others to replicate the work for their respective further research. The fabrication of results and the making of fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and may cause the rejection or the retraction of a manuscript or published article.

    The manuscript should contain the details of all the commercial software, hardware, or other product used. The authors should also disclose the sources of financial support for the research in the manuscript.

    Authors will be solely responsible for obtaining the written permission so as to include any images or artwork for which they do not hold copyright in their articles, or to adapt any such images or artwork for inclusion in their articles so as to avoid any ambiguity. Authors will be solely responsible for obtaining the written ethical permissions so as to carry out any research related to animals and/or human subject studies.

    The authors’ names should be listed in the article in order of their contribution with respect to the article, and all authors will be responsible for their own contributions. Only those individuals who have made a substantive contribution should be listed as authors; those whose contributions are indirect or marginal (e.g., colleagues or supervisors and heads of research institutes/centers/labs) should be addressed in an “Acknowledgments” section in the article. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the article, and that all listed co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and agreed to its publication.

    If in case, authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in an article of his/hers that has been already published by IJELP he/she has an obligation to promptly notify the editors and cooperate with them to correct the article or retract it, as per case may be or whatever be appropriate.

    Responsibilities of Reviewers

    The reviewers perform work for IJELP on a volunteer basis. The reviewers are free to decline the invitations to review a particular manuscript at their discretion because of any reason (e.g., workload and/or other commitments, timeframe). The reviewers should not be supposed to accept the manuscript for review assignments for which if they feel unqualified. The reviewers who have accepted manuscript assignments shall be committed to submit their reviews within the time span.

    All the manuscripts received for review must be treated as a confidential document, and must not be disclose or discussed with any others except the editorial office of IJELP. The reviewer must keep manuscript confidential and not supposed to be used for any sort of personal advantage.

    The reviewers are encouraged to express their views clearly, explaining and justifying all recommendations made by them in such a manner so that authors should not feel personal criticism while sending the review report. It should always be seen as an attempt to provide detailed and constructive feedback in order to improve their work done, even if the manuscript is, in their opinion, not suitable for publication.

    Reviewers should identify in their reviews that the relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s), together with any such instances wherein proper source has not been provided.

    The reviewers are encouraging to immediately inform if incase, there is any major resemblances between a manuscript under consideration and with other published articles or papers of which they are aware.

    Responsibilities of Editors and Editorial Board

    The editor  is  the  main  communicator  between  the  reviewers,  authors  and  publisher. The editor is the key factor who deals with any received information, complained or misconduct by the author or reviewer. The editor’s decision is final in acceptance or decline of a manuscript for publication.

    The Journal has a editorial board whose members are recognized experts in the field and this is confirmed. The full name and affiliations are provided in the Journal, as well as the contact information of the editorial board. These are also on the website.

    Manuscript decision 

    The editor is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication, which can be ensured with the help of concerning reviewer and authors. Editor adopts processes that encourage accuracy, significance, originality, completeness and clarity of research work.

    Fairness and Reliability

    The editor’s decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevancy to the subject, scope of the journal rather on financial, racial, ethnic origin etc… of the authors

    Secrecy 
    Any manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential document. The editor and any editorial  staff  must  not  disclose  any  information  about  a  submitted  manuscript  to  anyone other than the corresponding author, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

     

     

    Confession and conflicts of interest

    Submitted  work  in  form  of  manuscript  must  not  be  used  in  any  form  by  editor’s  own  work.  Editors should  not  allow  any  conflicts  of  interest between  staff,  authors,  reviewers  and  board members.  Editor must be  guided  by  the  COPE  flowcharts  in  cases  of  suspected  misconduct  or  disputed authorship.

     

    Errata/Retraction of manuscript 

    When authentic errors in published work are pointed out by any person, which do not make the work invalid, editors should publish errata pages or make corrections as soon as possible. If the error provides the  work  or  substantial  parts  of  it invalid,  the  paper  should  be  retracted  with  the reason of retraction.

    The editor of IJELP has ultimate responsibility for deciding if a manuscript submitted to the  journal should be published, and in doing so is guided by the journal’s policies as determined by the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may consult with the Associate Editor and other members of the editorial team, as well as with reviewers, in making publication decisions.

    1. Include full references in footnotes.
    2. Books should be cited as in Castells, M. (1996a), The Information Age, Blackwell, Oxford; Castells, M. (1996b), Economy and Society, Blackwell, Oxford; Castells, M. and Kiseleva, E. (1998), Russia and the Network Society, CSIS Press, Washington DC; Castells, M. and Nelson, G. (2000), An Evolutionary Theory, Belknap, Cambridge.
    3. Chapters should be cited as in Burns, J.P.A. and Mules, T.L. (1986), ‘A Framework for the Analysis of Major Special Events’, in: Burns J.P.A., Hatch J.H. and Mules T.L. (eds), The Adelaide Grand Prix: The Impact of a Special Event, The Centre for South Australian Economic Studies, Adelaide, pp. 5-38; Bentick, B.L. (1986), ‘The Role of the Grand Prix in Promoting South Australian Entrepreneurship; Exports and the Terms of Trade’, in: Mules J.P.A., Hatch J.H. and Mules T.L. (eds), The Adelaide Grand Prix: The Impact of a Special Event, The Centre for South Australian Economic Studies.
    4. Articles should be cited as in Baldridge, J.V. and Burnham, R.A. (1975), ‘Organizational Innovation: Individual Organizational and Environmental Impacts’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, pp. 165-75; Crisp, L. (1987), ‘Freo’s Rebirth’, The Australian Way, April, pp. 41-4.
    5. Reports should be cited as in Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism (1986), Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Annual Report 1985-86, Parliamentary Paper No. 413/1986, Australian Government Service, Canberra.
    6. If quoting from a publication, please include the page number(s) of the quote.
    7. Op cit and ibid may be used.
    8. Use ‘above’ and ‘below’ for cross referencing, not ‘supra’ and ‘infra’.
    9. Use lower case ‘g’ for ‘the government’.
    10. Quotes should be as in ‘Keith is the first of the “new” brand of scholars’.
    11. Numbers one to ten in words, 11 or more in numbers. Also use full numbers for 86-88, 112-113 etc.
    12. Dates as in ‘23 May 2004’.
    13. Please use ‘Article’ or ‘section’ in the text of the book and ‘Art.’ And ‘s. ‘ in the footnotes.
    14. Please use UK not U.K.
    15. Please use ECHR for European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
    16. Case names should be in italics.
    17. Use ‘he or she’ or ‘they’ unless you need to be specific as to gender.
    18. Don’t insert any running headers or footers. That will be done later.

    Go to Top