Journal on Education in Emergencies

Información para revisores

Completing and Submitting Peer Review Feedback

The Journal on Education in Emergencies (JEiE) acknowledges with gratitude the contributions of our anonymous peer reviewers. Their time and attention to JEiE manuscripts directly benefit authors and ensures that JEiE can continue to publish high-quality, open-access scholarly and practitioner work on education in emergencies.

Guidance on the Content of Peer Review Feedback

For reviewers who have agreed to provide peer review feedback, please consider the following questions as you do your review: 

For all manuscripts:

  • Is the topic within the scope of the journal as described at https://inee.org/journal? If the piece was submitted for consideration in a special issue of the journal, does it fit the theme and scope of the special issue?
  • How does the piece contribute to EiE evidence?
  • Does the author suggest how the piece may contribute to EiE policy, practice, or future research? 
  • Is the purpose of the piece clearly established?
  • Is there a clear, well-constructed, and sustained central argument?
  • Does the piece provide evidence (theoretical, empirical, or practice-based) to substantiate its claims?
  • Does the piece reference relevant EiE work and writing?
  • Is the writing clear and accessible? Is the structure clear and coherent?
  • Does the piece describe how the authors protected the confidentiality and security of vulnerable groups?

Please also consider the following questions below based on the article type of the manuscript you are reviewing. JEiE’s two article types are EiE Research Articles and EiE Field Notes.

You can find the article type of the manuscript you are reviewing in the heading section of the review invitation email you received from JEiE’s PeerTrack system.


For EiE Research Articles:

  • Is the research question clearly established? 
  • Is the piece guided by an appropriate theoretical or conceptual framework? Does the author adequately examine how the conceptual or theoretical framework informed the methodology, data collection, and/or data analysis?
  • How well is the piece embedded in an appropriate existing body of literature and theory? How well does the piece identify and advance existing debates? Does the piece use literature and theory to motivate its own argument?
  • How robust (systematic, rigorous, etc.) is the methodology? How appropriate are the research methods and the data collection and analysis procedures to the research question? Can the research question be answered with the methodology used?
  • Does the piece use primary data? Does the piece present a novel analysis of existing data?
  • How original is the analysis? Are the conclusions supported by the data? Does the author discuss potential alternative interpretations of the data? Does the author discuss any potential limitations of the findings?

For EiE Field Notes: 

  • Does the piece describe a tool, resource, practice, project, program, policy, debate, or approach in use in the EiE field? How innovative, thought-provoking, or useful is it? Does the author examine anecdotal lessons learned: challenges as well as progress, failures as well as successes, etc.? 
  • Does the piece offer critical reflection, observation, or commentary on the experience of doing EiE fieldwork or research?
  • How does the reflection, observation, or commentary contribute to EiE practice or further debate? Is it useful and applicable to the broader field?

Please note: EiE Field Notes should not attempt to answer causal questions, in contrast to research articles which may do so. Field Notes should be descriptive or exploratory. They may describe and discuss anecdotes that illustrate the main points in the piece. If a field note makes a strong causal claim, the claim should be changed; the authors should not attempt to add data to support this claim unless the authors have conducted research that includes a rigorous design that employs systematic methods and analysis, in which case it should be resubmitted as a research article. More information about Field Notes is available here: https://inee.org/journal/guidelines-field-notes

For additional information and guidance on the peer review process, please refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers: https://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf.

Guidance on Submitting Peer Review Feedback

Peer reviewers can find a link to download the PDF of the manuscript in the invitation email they received from JEiE’s PeerTrack system: https://www2.cloud.editorialmanager.com/jeie/default2.aspx. PeerTrack is JEiE’s manuscript and peer review management software.

The same email also contains a link to the PeerTrack form for submitting the review. JEiE peer review feedback is composed of three parts: (1) a decision recommendation (i.e., accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject), (2) narrative comments to the author, and (3) confidential narrative comments to the manuscript’s Handling Editor. You may save a review in progress and come back to it later.

Peer reviewers are encouraged to keep their login information safe and available for future reference. New peer reviewers whose account was created on their behalf by a member of the JEiE Editorial Office will have received an email from PeerTrack with their username and password. They are encouraged to change their password and complete the rest of their reviewer profile as soon as possible.

All peer reviewers can access their current review assignment by going directly to PeerTrack, entering their username and password, and clicking the button that reads “Reviewer Login.”

Contact

Peer reviewers are encouraged to email the JEiE Editorial Office at journal@inee.org at any time with questions or concerns.
 


La Journal on Education in Emergencies (JEiE por su siglas en inglés) se adhiere a las siguientes directrices acerca de los conflictos de interés. Este documento describe las prácticas que deben observar autores, editores y revisores.

Conflictos de interés

Un conflicto de interés se refiere a cualquier relación que tenga el/los autor/es, editor/es o revisor/es que interfiera, o que pueda percibirse como que interfiere, con la presentación completa y objetiva, la revisión por pares, la decisión editorial o la publicación de un manuscrito que haya sido enviado a la JEiE.

Un conflicto de interés puede surgir de cualquier relación de beneficio que un autor/es, editor/es o revisor/es pudiera tener con un manuscrito. Esta relación puede ser

  • financiera o no financiera;
  • personal o profesional, o
  • individual u organizacional (si, por ejemplo, una nota de campo describe un programa, enfoque o herramienta de una organización a la cual está vinculada el autor). 

El conflicto de interés resultante de la asociación del autor de una nota de campo con una organización que sea el sujeto de dicha nota no impedirá necesariamente que la nota de campo sea considerada, si la vinculación está debidamente documentada y reconocida.

Obligaciones de los revisores

Los revisores deberán declarar, en el momento en que se les invite a revisar el manuscrito, cualquier relación financiera, comercial, profesional o personal, compromisos académicos o afiliaciones institucionales, etc., que pudieran influir en el proceso de toma de decisiones editoriales. 

Para informar acerca de un conflicto de interés, el revisor o revisores deben ponerse contacto por escrito con el gerente editorial, indicar claramente el conflicto de interés y su relación con el autor o el manuscrito, y solicitar con firmeza ser eximidos de revisar este manuscrito en particular.

Cuando se informa un conflicto de interés al gerente editorial, el manuscrito en cuestión debe ser reasignado a un revisor diferente dentro del plazo de una semana. Tras la reasignación, el gerente editorial no debe

  • revelar la identidad del nuevo revisor al revisor recusado, y
  • revelar al nuevo revisor que surgió un conflicto de interés. 

Si todos los revisores contactados tuvieran algún conflicto de interés con el manuscrito, el editor principal debe continuar buscando al menos dos revisores para poder satisfacer los requisitos de publicación de la JEiE de revisión doblemente anónima por pares.

Los revisores deben asegurarse de que su trabajo en relación con la JEiE respete estas directrices respecto a los conflictos de interés y los estándares de buenas prácticas.

Para obtener más información acerca de la política sobre los conflictos de interés de la JEiE, contacte al equipo editorial en journal@inee.org.