Submit
Search
Submit
Menu

For Reviewers

1 Peer Review Process

  • Pre-check – The submitted manuscript is pre-screened by the Editor-in-Chief or an Editorial Board member to ensure basic quality and topic fit the journal’s requirement.
  • Reviewer Assignment – After passing pre-check, the manuscript undergoes anonymization. The editor will assign it to at least two qualified peer reviewers with matching expertise.
  • Reviewer Confirmation – Reviewers agree to review or suggest alternative experts.
  • Review and Comments – Reviewers provide comments and recommend one of the following: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. 
  • Author Revision – Authors revise the manuscript according to reviewer feedback. Major revision is allowed no more than twice.
  • Final Decision – The Editor-in-Chief (or designated Board member) makes the final decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

For details, see [Editorial Process].

2 Reviewers Responsibilities

2.1 Responsibilities of reviewers to authors

  • The reviewer must provide a timely, impartial, scientific, and constructive review of the manuscript, assessing its composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and its appeal to the readership of the journal.
  • The reviewer must maintain confidentiality throughout the review process and should not share, discuss, or disclose any information about the reviewed papers with any third parties.

2.2 Responsibilities of reviewers to editors

  • If unable to review a paper in a timely manner, the editor must be notified immediately. Reviewers can make a request to extend the deadline if more time is needed to compose a critique.
  • Potential personal, financial, or perceived conflicts of interest must be brought to the attention of the editor. One must decline to review in case such conflict exists.
  • Direct contact with authors should be avoided.

2.3 Responsibilities of reviewers to readers

  • It is necessary to ensure that the methods and analyses are sufficiently detailed to enable readers to assess the scientific merit of the study design and replicate the study.
  • Thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critiques of submitted work should be provided. This may include additional material provided to the journal by the author(s).

3 Become a Reviewer

All qualified researchers can register as reviewers of IJWS.

The online review system portal:

International Journal of Whole Schooling (IJWS, ISSN: 1710-2146)

In recognition of the valuable contributions made by our dedicated reviewers, Forum Multimedia Publishing awards the following benefits for reviewers：

  • If the reviewer assists the journal in conducting high-quality reviews for 3 or more manuscripts, they will have the opportunity to become a member of the journal's Board of Reviewers.
  • Interact with researchers and scholars in your field, enhancing your professional expertise and broadening your knowledge.
  • Establish your reputation among key figures in your field and increase your visibility.

4 Recommendations from the Reviewer

Apart from your comments on the review and responses to the editor's queries, the report should also include suggestions for the editor's consideration. Your available choices may comprise:

  • Acceptance

The manuscript is appropriate for publication in its present form (following copyediting and proofreading).

  • Minor revisions

After the authors respond to the reviewers' comments and makes appropriate changes, the manuscript may be suitable for publication. These changes may involve rewriting certain sections.

  • Major revisions

After the authors respond to the reviewers' comments and make the necessary changes, the manuscript may be suitable for publication. These changes may entail revising the study design, reanalyzing data, or substantially rewriting several sections.

  • Rejected

The manuscript is not appropriate for further consideration.

5 Preparation of the Review Report

We have established separate rubrics for major types of articles. Click on the appropriate article type to download a review rubric: Commentary & Practice; Research & Analysis; and Voices.

When writing your review report, consider the following factors:

  • The suitability of the article for the journal's scope.
  • The impact and novelty of the article.
  • Article length—Does it meet the required word count, figures, and tables for the category?
  • Title—Does it reflect the content and include relevant search terms?
  • Abstract—Does it stand on its own without referencing the main text?
  • Please separate major issues (issues that prevent publication) from minor issues (issues that the authors can easily address) in your report.
  • If the manuscript contains numerous language, grammatical, or spelling errors that obscure the scientific meaning, these may be noted in the comments.

Reviewers are requested to promptly inform the editor if they observe any of the following issues in a submitted manuscript:

  • Plagiarism or duplication – The content is substantially similar to previously published work, or contains duplicated text, figures, or tables.
  • Insufficient scientific rigor – The study design, methodology, or analysis lacks robustness or validity.
  • Limited innovation – The manuscript does not provide sufficient novelty, or it presents overly simplistic findings without meaningful contribution.
  • Salami publication – A substantial body of work is inappropriately divided into multiple smaller publications.
  • Unprofessional tone – The manuscript contains subjective or inappropriate criticism of other researchers or their work.
  • Ethical concerns – Irregularities in ethical approval and informed consent.
  • Data transparency issues – Lack of clarity, completeness, or accuracy in data presentation, statistical analysis, or supporting information.

6 Peer Review Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts under review are confidential and may only be accessed by peer reviewers and editorial staff.
  • Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use manuscript content without permission from the editors or authors.
  • Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and decline reviews where such conflicts exist.

Updated on January 20, 2026