Review Guidelines

Archives of Educational and Behavioral Sciences (AEBS) relies on the expertise of peer reviewers to ensure the academic quality, ethical transparency, and practical relevance of the work we publish. This guideline outlines our expectations and provides a framework for conducting fair, constructive, and rigorous reviews.

Reviewer Responsibilities

As a reviewer for AEBS, you are expected to:

Provide a confidential, unbiased, and timely evaluation
Assess the manuscript on scholarly merit and ethical standards only
Identify strengths, weaknesses, methodological issues, and ethical concerns
Offer constructive suggestions to help authors improve their work
Declare any conflicts of interest and decline the review if appropriate
Treat all submissions as confidential documents, never using content for personal purposes

Reviews should normally be completed within 2–3 weeks. If you cannot meet this deadline, please inform the editorial office promptly.

Double-Blind Review

AEBS uses a double-blind peer review system:

Reviewers do not know the identity of authors
Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
Reviewers should avoid self-identifying comments in their reports

Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, please consider:

Scholarly Quality

Is the research question significant and clearly stated?
Are the methods appropriate, transparent, and replicable?
Are the findings well-supported and critically interpreted?

Originality and Contribution

Does the study add new insights to education, psychology, counseling, or behavioral sciences?
Does it address timely and meaningful academic or practical issues?

Ethical Standards

Are ethics approvals and participant consents documented when required?
Is the work free from plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data manipulation?

Clarity and Presentation

Is the manuscript logically structured and clearly written?
Are tables, figures, and references appropriate and accurate?
Do the conclusions reflect the results without exaggeration?

Review Report Format

Your review should contain two parts:

Comments to the Editor (Confidential)

A concise overview of your evaluation
Any serious concerns or suspicions of misconduct
Your recommended decision

Comments to the Author

Clear, respectful, and constructive feedback
Organized as major comments (substantive issues) and minor comments (editorial or stylistic suggestions)

Recommendation Options

At the end of your review, you will be asked to select one of the following:

Accept without revision
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject

If you recommend revision, please indicate whether you would like to review the revised version.

Confidentiality and Data Use

All manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers must not share or use any part of a submission for personal, academic, or professional advantage.

Recognition of Reviewers

AEBS deeply values the work of its reviewers. In appreciation:

Certificates of review can be issued upon request
Reviewers who consistently provide outstanding feedback may be invited to join the Editorial Board
With consent, reviewers may be acknowledged annually on the journal’s website