Instructions for reviewers
Objectives of Peer Review
The objective of peer review is to provide constructive but rigorous encouragement regarding the scientific content and English language quality of a report. All comments and suggestions of our peer reviewers are given in a respectful tone, and returned to the journal’s editorial office in a timely manner. Peer reviewers also help to ensure the ethical integrity of each manuscript, by pointing out any suspected or identified cases of plagiarism, either scientific or textual, in whole or in part.
Evaluation Criteria
Specifically, reviewers should consider whether all submissions adhere to the six criteria for educational scholarship defined below (Glassick et al., 1997) and are generalizable in nature (i.e., the materials can be implemented at another institution without additional effort, cost, or explanation).
Specifically, reviewers should consider whether all submissions adhere to the six criteria for educational scholarship defined below (Glassick et al., 1997) and are generalizable in nature (i.e., the materials can be implemented at another institution without additional effort, cost, or explanation).
CLEAR GOALS:
The author explicitly states the educational objectives of the work from the perspective of the target audience; the objectives are SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, and Realistic.
ADEQUATE PREPARATION:
The author uses prior work (e.g., existing scholarship and personal experience) to inform and develop the work.
APPRIOPRIATE METHODS:
The author uses a suitable approach to meet the stated educational objectives of the work.
SIGNIFICANT RESULTS:
The author achieves the goals and contributes substantially to others (e.g., learners, colleagues) and to the field in a manner that invites others to use the work.
EFFECTIVE PRESENTATION:
The author effectively organizes and presents the work sufficiently clearly that others can easily emulate/use and build upon it.
REFLECTIVE CRITIQUE:
The author thoughtfully assesses the work and uses review/critique from other sources to refine, enhance, or expand the original concept.
Reviewer Responsibilities
All reviewers at least are Ph.D. holder. Reviewers must commit to being timely, fair and professional in conducting their reviews. Each reviewer will receive electronic access to article submissions in the HPG journals and they will need to complete on-line evaluations. They are barred from reviewing articles submitted by professional colleagues employed by the same organization. HPG journals’ reviewer review at least 1 paper/issue relevant to his/her area and post call for papers to relevant websites. Also it is expected that he/she must refer more reviewers.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Reviewers should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and avoid cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.