Journal on Education in Emergencies

JEiE Information for Peer Reviewers

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 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:

For additional information and guidance on the peer review process, please refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:

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: 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.”


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

The Journal on Education in Emergencies adheres to the following conflict of interest guidelines. This policy document outlines the practices JEiE reviewers must observe.

Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest refers to any relationship author(s), editor(s), or reviewer(s) have that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decisionmaking, or publication of a manuscript that has been submitted to JEiE.

A conflict of interest can arise from any beneficial relationship an author(s), editor(s), or reviewer(s) could have with a manuscript. This relationship can be

  • financial or non-financial;
  • personal or professional; or
  • individual or organizational (if, for example, a field note describes a program, approach, or tool from the author’s organization).

A conflict of interest resulting from a field note author’s association with an organization that is the subject of the field note may not preclude the field note from consideration if it is properly documented and acknowledged.  

Obligations of JEiE Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers must declare, at the time of invitation to review the manuscript, any financial, commercial, professional, or personal relationships; academic commitments; or institutional affiliations, etc., that could influence the editorial decision making process.

To report a conflict of interest, a reviewer(s) must contact the Managing Editor in writing clearly stating the conflict of interest, explaining her/his relationship with the author and/or manuscript, and firmly ask to be recused from reviewing this specific submission.

When a conflict of interest is disclosed to the Managing Editor, the manuscript in question must be reassigned to a different reviewer within one week. Upon reassignment, the Managing Editor should

  • not disclose the identity of the new reviewer to the recused reviewer, and
  • not disclose to the new reviewer that a conflict of interest arose.

If all contacted reviewers have a conflict of interest with a piece, the Lead Editor must continue to search for at least two reviewers to uphold the JEiE publishing requirements for anonymous peer review.

Reviewers must ensure that their work associated with JEiE is in line with these conflict of interest guidelines and standards of good practice.

For further clarification of the JEiE Conflict of Interest Policy, please contact the Editorial Office at