Reviewer Guidelines

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, copy, distribute, discuss, or use information obtained from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage. The manuscript must not be shared with third parties unless authorized by the Editor.

1. Relevance, Originality, and Scientific Contribution

• Is the manuscript relevant to the focus and scope of JLPF?
• Does the study address an important and meaningful research problem?
• Does the manuscript provide an original contribution to Physics Education, Physics, or related fields?
• Does the study add meaningful knowledge to the existing literature?
• Are the research objectives and research questions clearly formulated?

2. Title and Abstract

• Does the title accurately and clearly describe the content of the manuscript?
• Does the abstract accurately represent the purpose, methods, main findings, and conclusion of the study?
• Are the keywords relevant and representative of the manuscript?

3. Introduction and Literature Review

• Is the research problem clearly established?
• Does the introduction provide an adequate and relevant background?
• Does the manuscript demonstrate an appropriate understanding of previous research?
• Are relevant and sufficiently recent references included?
• Is the research gap and contribution clearly identified?

4. Methodology

• Is the research design appropriate for addressing the research objectives or questions?
• Are the participants, samples, instruments, materials, and procedures adequately described?
• Is the data collection procedure sufficiently clear?
• Are the methods appropriate and sufficiently detailed to allow the study to be understood or replicated?
• Are the data analysis techniques appropriate for the research design and type of data?
• Are statistical analyses appropriate and correctly applied?

5. Results

• Are the results presented clearly and logically?
• Are the analyses appropriate and correctly reported?
• Are tables and figures used appropriately to present the findings?
• Are the results consistent with the research objectives and methods?

6. Discussion

• Does the discussion adequately interpret the findings?
• Are the findings appropriately compared with previous studies?
• Does the discussion explain the significance and contribution of the findings?
• Are the interpretations supported by the results?

7. Conclusion and Implications

• Does the conclusion directly address the research objectives?
• Is the conclusion supported by the findings?
• Does the manuscript clearly explain the implications or contribution of the research?

8. Figures, Tables, and Mathematical Expressions

• Are figures and tables relevant and necessary?
• Are figures and tables presented clearly and accurately?
• Are captions and labels sufficiently clear?
• Are mathematical formulas, variables, and SI units presented appropriately?

9. References and Citations

• Are important and relevant sources cited?
• Are the references sufficiently current and appropriate?
• Are claims supported by appropriate references?
• Are citations and references presented consistently with the JLPF Author Guidelines?

10. Language, Organization, and Presentation

• Is the manuscript logically organized?
• Is the scientific argument presented clearly?
• Is the language appropriate for the journal's readership?
• Are unnecessary repetition, ambiguity, and unclear terminology avoided?

Suggested Comment Structure

1. Overall assessment and contribution — briefly describe the manuscript's main contribution and strengths.
2. Major issues — identify substantive problems that must be addressed before publication.
3. Methodological issues — identify concerns regarding research design, data collection, analysis, validity, reliability, or interpretation.
4. Results and discussion — identify issues concerning the presentation, interpretation, and significance of findings.
5. Minor issues — identify smaller corrections concerning clarity, organization, references, tables, figures, language, or formatting.
6. Recommendation — provide an overall recommendation to the Editor.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts throughout the peer-review process. Manuscripts, unpublished data, research findings, and other confidential information must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative AI tools or other external systems without explicit authorization from the Editor and the journal's applicable policy.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their review reports. Any use of AI-assisted tools must comply with the JLPF Generative AI Policy and must not compromise the confidentiality of the manuscript or the independence of the review.

1. Accept — The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only very minor changes.
2. Minor Revision — The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited revisions.
3. Major Revision — The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication.
4. Reject — The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication because of substantial problems in scope, originality, scientific contribution, methodology, or other fundamental aspects.

Thank You to Our Reviewers

JLPF greatly appreciates the time, expertise, and constructive contributions of reviewers in maintaining the quality, integrity, and scientific value of the journal's publications.