Peer-Reviewers Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is a central component of GiST – Education and Learning Research Journal’s commitment to academic rigor, ethical integrity, and pedagogical quality. Reviewers play a key role in strengthening scholarly work and supporting constructive academic dialogue.

GiST recognizes peer review as a vital scholarly contribution that upholds the quality and integrity of academic publishing. In appreciation of this essential voluntary work, the journal may issue certificates of contribution to reviewers and, with their explicit consent, periodically acknowledge their names publicly. However, peer review is carried out entirely on a voluntary basis, and no financial compensation is offered.

These guidelines outline the responsibilities, ethical expectations, and scope of participation for reviewers involved in the journal’s editorial process.

Double-blind Review Model: GiST employs a double-blind peer-review process for all research articles, reflective articles, review articles, case studies, and pedagogical essays, ensuring that authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process. Each manuscript is assessed by at least two external reviewers with relevant expertise, and, in cases where evaluations differ substantially, the Editor may consult an additional blind reviewer or seek the input of the Editorial Committee to reach a final decision.

As an exception, book reviews are evaluated internally by members of the Editorial Committee or Editorial Team, and may also be assessed by faculty members of Institución Universitaria Colombo Americana – ÚNICA or by other scholars with recognized expertise in the book’s subject area. Unlike other submissions, book reviews are not subject to external peer review; instead, their evaluation emphasizes scholarly relevance, critical engagement, and the contribution they make to ongoing discussions in bilingual education and related fields.

Selection and Invitation of Reviewers: Reviewers are selected by the Editor based on subject-matter expertise, academic and professional experience, methodological competence, and the absence of conflicts of interest. Invitations to review include the manuscript abstract, access instructions through the OJS platform, the proposed review timeline (normally one month), and a summary of ethical responsibilities. If reviewers are unable to meet the proposed deadline or identify a conflict of interest, they must notify the editorial team promptly.

Scope and Purpose of the Review: Peer review at GiST is both evaluative and formative, as reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts with particular attention to relevance to the journal’s scope, originality and contribution to the field, methodological rigor and coherence, engagement with relevant scholarly literature, clarity of structure and argumentation, and ethical soundness of the research. In keeping with GiST’s pedagogical mission, reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, respectful, and actionable feedback that helps authors strengthen their work.

Ethical Vigilance and Reporting Concerns: Reviewers play a crucial role in safeguarding research integrity by identifying potential ethical issues such as plagiarism or text recycling, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, and unethical research practices involving human participants. Any concerns regarding these matters must be reported confidentially to the Editor, who will address them in accordance with the journal’s Ethical Guidelines and Ethical Procedures.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers: GiST permits reviewers to use artificial intelligence tools only under strict conditions. Such tools may be employed exclusively for grammar checking or language support, including translation when necessary, but may not be used to evaluate intellectual content, generate review reports, assess originality, or influence editorial decisions. Regardless of AI assistance, reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and judgment of their reviews.

Review Reports and Recommendations: Reviewers submit their evaluations through the journal’s review form, which features a structured checklist aligned with GiST’s evaluation criteria, a section for comments addressed to the author(s), and an optional space to upload an annotated version of the manuscript. As part of the review process, reviewers are asked to recommend one of the following outcomes: accept, accept with minor revisions, revise and resubmit (major revisions), or reject. Final publication decisions rest solely with the Editor.

 

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Maintain strict confidentiality by treating all manuscripts and related materials as private; do not share, cite, or distribute the manuscript or its content; and do not use unpublished material for personal or professional benefit.

Declare any conflicts of interest by disclosing financial, institutional, professional, or personal relationships that could compromise objectivity, and decline the review if a conflict is identified.

Act with integrity and objectivity by providing unbiased evaluations based solely on scholarly merit, using respectful, professional, and non-discriminatory language, and avoiding personal criticism of the author(s).

Respect timelines by completing reviews within the agreed timeframe and communicating promptly with the editorial team if delays are unavoidable.

Uphold Ethical Standards by adhering to GiST’s Ethical Guidelines and Ethical Procedures, the COPE Core Practices, and internationally recognized standards of publication ethics.

Concerns or questions related to the review process may be addressed to the editorial team at gist@unica.edu.co. Individuals interested in serving as academic reviewers may also contact the editorial team at the same address, using the subject line: Academic Reviewer Application – GiST.
 

Reviewer Evaluation Forms  

Reviewers must answer yes, no, or needs improvement to the following question:
 

Research article or case study 

  • Does the article address a well-defined issue that can be researched objectively?
  • Will the thesis be relevant to those interested in bilingual education?
  • Does the paper use and progressively build upon existing knowledge in the field?
  • Does it offer new knowledge?
  • Are the bibliographic sources respectable and clearly identified?
  • Are the references appropriate and up to date?
  • Does the author use a critical perspective?
  • Are the weaknesses within the research process openly admitted?
  • Are the conclusions presented in an accurate and academic way?
  • Is the thesis clearly supported by the information found in the article?
 

Reflective article

  • There is an explicit objective for introspection or analysis of personal/professional experiences, clearly aligned with the article’s central theme or research question.
  • There is an explicit objective for introspection or analysis of personal/professional experiences, clearly aligned with the article’s central theme or research question.
  • The author effectively uses updated academic literature to contextualize and deepen their personal experiences, ensuring coherence between the reflection and the theoretical framework.
  • The article addresses a relevant topic for the journal’s audience or academic field, contributing original ideas or approaches that challenge or rethink existing practices or beliefs.
  • The article fosters academic debate by offering new perspectives or insights that inspire further research or discussion.
  • The personal narrative is well-structured, with a clear progression from introduction to conclusion, demonstrating the evolution of the author’s thinking or practice.
  • The author demonstrates self-critique, recognizing areas for growth and reflecting on the impact of past decisions or beliefs.
  • Reflections are supported by concrete examples from the author’s experiences, which are seamlessly integrated with academic or conceptual elements.
 

Book Review

  • Does the review place the book in context with other works in the discipline?
  • Does the review provide a clear and critical evaluation of the book’s contribution to its field?
  • Does the review identify and discuss the book’s main themes and conclusions?
  • Does the review evaluate the sources and references used by the book’s author?
  • Is there a clear discussion of the methodologies employed in the book?
  • Does the author use a critical perspective?
  • Is the review organized clearly, with a logical flow from introduction to conclusion?
  • Does the review effectively summarize the book’s thesis and main arguments?
  • Are the key aspects of the book (e.g., subject, main themes, major claims) clearly identified and evaluated?
  • Is the language of the review academic and clear?
  • Are there any sections of the book that the review suggests could be improved or expanded upon?
  • Does the review offer recommendations for who should or should not read the book?
  • Does the review provide a balanced view, acknowledging both strengths and weaknesses of the book?