Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

1. Introduction

Peer reviewers play a central role in safeguarding the academic integrity, scientific quality, and international reputation of Futurity Education. As an international, peer-reviewed open-access journal dedicated to advancing forward-looking research in education, innovative pedagogies, and transformative educational technologies, the journal relies on reviewers to ensure that all published works meet high ethical, methodological, and scholarly standards.

These Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers are based on internationally recognized best practices, including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers  , and are adapted to the interdisciplinary educational focus of the journal.

These principles apply to all forms of peer review conducted for Futurity Education, including reviews of:

• Original research articles

• Review papers

• Theoretical and conceptual manuscripts

• Policy analyses

• Educational technology studies

• E-learning and digital education research

• Pre-publication and revised submissions

2. Professional Responsibility of Reviewers

Serving as a reviewer for Futurity Education is both a scholarly contribution and a professional responsibility.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Accept review invitations only when they possess the appropriate subject expertise.

• Provide accurate and up-to-date professional information to the journal.

• Conduct reviews objectively, independently, and ethically.

• Deliver reviews within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers should not accept assignments if:

• They lack sufficient expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.

• They cannot meet the review deadline.

• They cannot provide an impartial evaluation.

3. Peer Review Model Used by Futurity Education

Futurity Education applies a single-anonymous pre-publication peer review model, in which:

• Reviewers remain anonymous.

• Authors do not know reviewer identities.

• Editors mediate all communication.

• Reviews are not published.

• The journal facilitates and manages the review process.

This model aligns with the framework described in COPE’s documentation

ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewe…

and ensures fairness, confidentiality, and editorial independence.

4. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

• Not share manuscripts or supplementary materials with third parties.

• Not use unpublished data, ideas, or findings for personal advantage.

• Not discuss the manuscript with colleagues without prior editorial permission.

• Not retain copies after completing the review process.

If a reviewer wishes to involve a junior researcher for training purposes, prior permission from the Editor-in-Chief is required, and the individual must be formally acknowledged.

Confidentiality must continue even after the review process is complete.

5. Competing Interests and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting a manuscript. Conflicts may include:

• Institutional affiliation with the author(s)

• Recent collaboration (within the past 3 years)

• Financial interest

• Personal relationship

• Academic competition

• Intellectual bias

If a potential conflict is identified after accepting the review, the reviewer must immediately inform the editorial office.

Reviewers must never accept a manuscript solely to gain early access to its findings.

6. Objectivity and Constructive Evaluation

Peer review at Futurity Education must be conducted with intellectual rigor, fairness, and professional respect.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide evidence-based, well-reasoned assessments.

• Focus on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, not on personal preferences.

• Avoid personal criticism of the author(s).

• Use professional and neutral language.

• Distinguish between major methodological flaws and minor editorial issues.

Constructive feedback should:

• Clearly identify strengths of the manuscript.

• Highlight methodological limitations or theoretical weaknesses.

• Offer practical recommendations for improvement.

• Support authors in strengthening clarity, structure, and academic contribution.

Unsubstantiated negative comments or dismissive statements are unacceptable.

7. Evaluation Criteria Specific to Futurity Education

Given the journal’s focus on future-oriented educational research and innovation, reviewers are encouraged to evaluate manuscripts according to the following core dimensions:

7.1 Relevance to Journal Scope

The manuscript should align with the journal’s areas of interest, including:

• Educational innovation and emerging technologies

• E-learning and ICT in education

• Curriculum and pedagogy

• Education policy and reform

• STEM and digital transformation in education

• Teacher education and professional training

• Inclusive and multicultural education

• Future challenges in educational systems

Submissions outside the scope should be clearly identified for editorial consideration.

7.2 Originality and Contribution

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript:

• Presents new insights or theoretical advancement.

• Offers innovative methodological approaches.

• Contributes to international academic discourse.

• Addresses future-oriented educational challenges.

• Demonstrates interdisciplinary relevance where applicable.

7.3 Methodological Rigor

For empirical research, reviewers should examine:

• Research design appropriateness.

• Sampling procedures.

• Data collection methods.

• Statistical or qualitative analysis validity.

• Transparency and replicability.

• Ethical compliance in human-subject research.

For theoretical or conceptual papers:

• Logical consistency.

• Engagement with contemporary literature.

• Analytical depth.

• Clarity of argumentation.

7.4 Ethical Compliance in Research

Reviewers should identify:

• Evidence of informed consent (if applicable).

• Institutional ethical approval where required.

• Responsible use of data.

• Absence of plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

• Proper citation practices.

If ethical concerns arise, reviewers must notify the editor confidentially.

8. Integrity and Misconduct

Reviewers play an important role in identifying potential ethical misconduct, including:

• Plagiarism.

• Duplicate publication.

• Data fabrication or falsification.

• Unethical research practices.

• Manipulated or misleading citations.

Any suspicion of misconduct must be reported to the editorial office with supporting explanation. Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact authors.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts into generative AI systems or external platforms that store or reuse content, as this violates confidentiality.

AI tools may be used only in limited supportive ways (e.g., grammar suggestions) if:

• No manuscript content is stored or reused externally.

• Confidentiality is strictly preserved.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the intellectual content of their evaluation.

10. Timeliness

Peer review is a time-sensitive academic responsibility.

Reviewers must:

• Confirm availability within the requested timeframe.

• Submit their review within the standard review period (typically 10–14 days).

• Inform the editorial office promptly if delays occur.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, they should decline promptly and may suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

11. Communication with the Editorial Office

All communication must occur through official editorial channels.

Reviewers should:

• Address confidential comments to the editor separately when necessary.

• Clearly differentiate between comments for authors and confidential editorial notes.

• Avoid direct contact with authors.

12. Professional Conduct and Academic Integrity

Reviewers must:

• Act in good faith.

• Avoid bias based on nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, academic rank, or theoretical orientation.

• Respect diversity of perspectives and methodological traditions.

• Support the development of early-career researchers through constructive engagement.

13. Recognition of Reviewer Contribution

Futurity Education values the contribution of its reviewers and may provide:

• Formal certificates of reviewer service.

• Annual acknowledgment of reviewers.

• Recognition for timely and high-quality reviews.

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless explicitly agreed otherwise.

14. Continuous Improvement and Education

These guidelines serve as:

• A reference framework for reviewers.

• A standard for editorial practice.

• A training resource for doctoral candidates and early-career scholars.

The journal periodically reviews and updates these guidelines in accordance with international publishing standards and evolving ethical requirements.

15. Final Statement

By accepting a review assignment for Futurity Education, reviewers confirm that they:

• Have read and understood these Ethical Guidelines.

• Agree to uphold the principles of integrity, confidentiality, and scholarly responsibility.

• Commit to maintaining high ethical and academic standards in the peer-review process.

The Editorial Board of Futurity Education thanks all reviewers for their essential contribution to advancing innovative, forward-looking educational research worldwide.