Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, critically, and constructively in accordance with recognized standards of scholarly publishing. The review process of Science Education: Research, Practice, and Pedagogy (SERPP) aims to ensure the academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, and scholarly contribution of each manuscript.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, evidence-based, and professional feedback that assists editors in making editorial decisions and helps authors improve the quality and significance of their work. Particular attention should be given to the manuscript's contribution to science education research, practice, pedagogy, and related educational contexts.

1. Title

Review whether the title:

• Is concise, informative, and descriptive.
• Accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.
• Demonstrates clarity and scholarly relevance.
• Consists of approximately 12–15 words.
• Avoids unnecessary abbreviations, jargon, or formulas.

2. Abstract and Keywords

Review whether the abstract:

• Clearly presents the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
• Accurately reflects the overall content of the manuscript.
• Demonstrates the significance and contribution of the study.
• Is written in clear and coherent academic English.
• Consists of approximately 150–250 words.

Review whether the keywords:

• Consist of 3–5 relevant terms.
• Represent the core topics and concepts of the manuscript.
• Support indexing and discoverability.
• Are arranged consistently and separated by commas.

3. Introduction

Review whether the introduction:

• Explains the research background clearly and logically.
• Identifies significant research gaps or unresolved scholarly issues.
• Demonstrates the novelty and originality of the study.
• Positions the study within relevant national and international scholarship.
• Includes relevant and up-to-date literature.
• Establishes a clear theoretical or conceptual foundation.
• States specific research objectives or research questions clearly.
• Demonstrates the significance of the study to science education.

4. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Review whether the manuscript:

• Employs relevant and current theoretical perspectives.
• Demonstrates conceptual clarity and analytical coherence.
• Integrates theory effectively into analysis and interpretation.
• Critically engages with previous scholarship.
• Avoids superficial or purely descriptive use of theory.

5. Research Method

Review whether the method section:

• Clearly explains the research design and approach.
• Demonstrates methodological rigor and transparency.
• Describes participants, data sources, instruments, and procedures appropriately.
• Explains data collection and analysis techniques adequately.
• Justifies methodological choices appropriately.
• Provides sufficient detail for replication or verification.
• Addresses validity, reliability, credibility, or trustworthiness where relevant.
• Aligns appropriately with the research objectives.

For literature-based, systematic review, design-based, development, or other forms of educational research, reviewers should assess whether the methodological approach is sufficiently systematic, transparent, and appropriate for the study.

6. Results and Discussion

Review whether the manuscript:

• Presents findings clearly, systematically, and coherently.
• Uses appropriate tables, figures, charts, or other visual representations effectively.
• Demonstrates analytical depth and scholarly contribution.
• Critically discusses findings using relevant theories and previous studies.
• Engages with related perspectives and contemporary scholarly debates.
• Explains implications for science teaching, learning, curriculum, assessment, policy, or future research where relevant.
• Demonstrates originality in interpretation and analysis.
• Avoids merely descriptive presentation without critical interpretation.
• Shows clear alignment between findings, analysis, and research objectives.

7. Conclusion

Review whether the conclusion:

• Summarizes the main findings appropriately.
• Reflects the objectives and results of the study consistently.
• Demonstrates the contribution and significance of the study.
• Explains theoretical and practical implications clearly.
• Includes research limitations where appropriate.
• Provides meaningful recommendations or future research directions.

8. References

Review whether the references:

• Follow the APA 7th Edition referencing style consistently.
• Use recent, relevant, and credible scholarly sources.
• Primarily cite peer-reviewed journal articles, academic books, and reputable scholarly publications.
• Demonstrate engagement with international and contemporary scholarship.
• Include sufficient recent literature, particularly publications from the last five years where appropriate.
• Are consistent between in-text citations and the reference list.
• Avoid excessive reliance on non-scholarly or inaccessible sources.

Reviewers may identify relevant scholarly references that appear to have been omitted when such references are important to the manuscript's theoretical or empirical context.

9. Originality and Scholarly Contribution

Review whether the manuscript:

• Demonstrates clear originality and novelty.
• Contributes theoretically, conceptually, empirically, or methodologically to the field.
• Advances current scholarly discussions in science education.
• Offers significant insights beyond descriptive findings.
• Provides meaningful contributions to science education research, practice, or pedagogy.

10. International Relevance and Academic Significance

Review whether the manuscript:

• Addresses issues relevant to broader scholarly audiences.
• Demonstrates relevance beyond a specific local or institutional context where appropriate.
• Engages with contemporary international literature and scholarly debates.
• Contributes to broader discussions in science education, STEM education, educational innovation, and related fields.

11. Academic Writing Quality

Review whether the manuscript:

• Uses clear, coherent, and professional academic language.
• Demonstrates logical organization and readability.
• Maintains consistency in terminology and writing style.
• Avoids grammatical, typographical, and stylistic inconsistencies.
• Follows SERPP's manuscript formatting and writing guidelines appropriately.

12. Ethical Compliance

Review whether the manuscript:

• Demonstrates appropriate ethical research practices.
• Properly acknowledges funding sources and potential conflicts of interest.
• Includes ethical approval or informed consent where necessary.
• Protects the rights, privacy, and confidentiality of research participants where applicable.
• Avoids plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, and redundant publication.
• Complies with accepted standards of publication ethics and research integrity.

13. Final Recommendation

Based on the overall evaluation, reviewers are requested to provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept Submission
• Minor Revisions Required
• Major Revisions Required
• Reject Submission

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments to support their recommendations and assist both the editorial team and authors in maintaining the scholarly quality of SERPP.