Author Guidelines

About the Journal

The Review Journal of Higher-Order Thinking and Metacognition exclusively publishes scholarly review articles concerning higher-order thinking, metacognition, reasoning, problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity, self-regulated learning, and related cognitive processes in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.

The journal does not normally accept primary empirical research, classroom action research, development studies, experimental studies, surveys, case studies, or reports based mainly on newly collected participant data. Manuscripts must provide an original, rigorous, and substantive synthesis of existing scholarly literature.

Before submitting a manuscript, authors must ensure that the manuscript is consistent with the journal's aims and scope, follows the appropriate review methodology, complies with the relevant reporting guideline, and is prepared using the journal's manuscript template.

Accepted Article Types

Authors must clearly identify the review type in the title, abstract, introduction, and method section. The selected review design must be appropriate to the review objective and applied consistently throughout the manuscript.

Systematic Review

A systematic review addresses a clearly formulated review question through an explicit, reproducible, and comprehensive process for identifying, selecting, appraising, and synthesizing relevant studies. Systematic reviews must follow PRISMA 2020 and any relevant PRISMA extension.

Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis statistically combines findings from eligible studies. Manuscripts must explain effect-size calculation, data dependency, statistical models, heterogeneity, publication bias, sensitivity analyses, moderator analyses, and the assumptions underlying the synthesis.

Scoping Review

A scoping review maps the extent, range, characteristics, concepts, and gaps within a body of literature. Scoping reviews must follow the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

Integrative Review

An integrative review combines theoretical and empirical literature to develop a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon. Authors must clearly explain the search process, source-selection criteria, appraisal procedure, analytical framework, and method of integration.

Narrative Review

A narrative review provides a critical, interpretive, and theoretically informed synthesis of a scholarly field. It must not consist merely of a descriptive summary of selected publications. Authors must explain the review purpose, scope, source-identification process, selection rationale, analytical perspective, and limitations.

Conceptual or Theoretical Review

A conceptual or theoretical review analyses, compares, critiques, extends, or integrates theories, constructs, frameworks, or models. Manuscripts must provide a clear analytical framework and demonstrate a distinct conceptual contribution beyond summarizing existing theories.

Bibliometric Review

A bibliometric review quantitatively analyses publication patterns, citation relationships, intellectual structures, thematic development, collaboration networks, or research trends. Authors must provide reproducible database queries, data-cleaning procedures, software information, analytical parameters, and interpretation of the bibliometric findings.

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

A qualitative evidence synthesis integrates findings from qualitative studies using a clearly stated and defensible synthesis approach. Authors should follow an appropriate reporting guideline, such as ENTREQ, and explain coding, theme development, reflexivity, and confidence in the synthesized findings.

Umbrella Review or Review of Reviews

An umbrella review synthesizes evidence from existing systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Authors must explain how overlapping primary studies were identified and managed and should follow the PRIOR reporting guideline where applicable.

General Submission Requirements

• The manuscript must be original, unpublished, and not under consideration by another journal.
• The manuscript must be written in clear and academically appropriate English.
• Authors must use the journal's official manuscript template.
• The main manuscript must be submitted in Microsoft Word format using the .doc or .docx file type.
• The manuscript should normally contain between 6,000 and 10,000 words, excluding references, tables, figure captions, and supplementary materials.
• Longer manuscripts may be considered when the length is justified by the scope, analytical depth, or methodological complexity of the review.
• Manuscripts should contain at least 50 relevant references.
• At least 80% of the references should normally be peer-reviewed journal articles, with international journal articles strongly preferred.
• Authors should prioritize current literature published within the previous ten years while retaining older foundational works when they are theoretically or historically necessary.
• All listed authors must approve the submitted version and accept responsibility for the integrity of the manuscript.

Manuscript Preparation

Document Format

• Page size: A4.
• File format: Microsoft Word.
• Use the font, margins, spacing, and heading styles provided in the journal template.
• Use continuous page numbering.
• Use line numbering when required by the submission system.
• Avoid unnecessary formatting, decorative elements, and manual spacing.
• Use standard international units and define all abbreviations at first use.

Anonymous Manuscript

The manuscript submitted for peer review must not contain information that directly identifies the authors. Author names, affiliations, email addresses, acknowledgements, and other identifying information must be placed in a separate title-page file.

Authors should also remove identifying information from document properties, tracked changes, comments, filenames, supplementary files, and self-referencing statements.

Required Submission Files

A complete submission should include the following files:

1. Title Page, containing the manuscript title, author names, affiliations, ORCID identifiers, corresponding-author information, author contributions, funding information, conflicts of interest, acknowledgements, and declarations.
2. Anonymous Main Manuscript, containing the complete article without author-identifying information.
3. Cover Letter, explaining the relevance, originality, review type, methodological approach, and contribution of the manuscript.
4. Reporting Guideline Checklist appropriate to the review type.
5. Supplementary Materials, including complete search strategies, screening information, exclusion logs, extraction forms, analytical data, coding frameworks, and statistical code where applicable.
6. Permission Documentation for copyrighted material reproduced or adapted from other publications, where required.

Title Page

The title page must contain:

• the full manuscript title;
• the short running title, where required;
• the full name of each author;
• the institutional affiliation of each author;
• the country associated with each affiliation;
• the ORCID identifier of each author;
• the name and email address of the corresponding author;
• the author-contribution statement;
• the conflict-of-interest statement;
• the funding statement;
• the data-availability statement;
• the acknowledgement section, where applicable; and
• the AI-use disclosure, where applicable.

Manuscript Title

The title should be concise, informative, and specific. It should accurately identify the main topic, population or educational context where relevant, and the review design.

The title should normally not exceed 20 words. Authors should identify the review type using terms such as:

• systematic review;
• systematic review and meta-analysis;
• scoping review;
• integrative review;
• narrative review;
• conceptual review;
• bibliometric review;
• qualitative evidence synthesis; or
• umbrella review.

Titles should avoid unexplained abbreviations, unsupported claims, promotional language, and statements that imply causality when the evidence does not support causal interpretation.

Abstract

The abstract should contain between 200 and 250 words. It must clearly summarize the review and be understandable without reference to the full manuscript.

For systematic reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, and other method-driven evidence syntheses, the abstract should contain:

• Background: context and review rationale;
• Objective: review question or purpose;
• Methods: sources searched, eligibility criteria, search period, and synthesis method;
• Results: number and characteristics of included sources and principal findings;
• Conclusion: main interpretation, implication, and limitation; and
• Registration: protocol registration information, where applicable.

Narrative, conceptual, and theoretical reviews may use an unstructured abstract, but the abstract must still state the background, objective, approach, principal argument, and conclusion.

The abstract must not contain citations, undefined abbreviations, unsupported claims, or information that is not reported in the main manuscript.

Keywords

Authors must provide five to seven keywords. Keywords should represent the principal concepts, educational context, population, and review methodology.

Keywords should not merely repeat complete phrases from the title. Authors should use internationally recognizable terms that support indexing and discoverability.

Manuscript Structure

The exact structure may vary according to the review type. However, most manuscripts should contain the following principal sections:

1. Introduction
2. Method
3. Results or Review Findings
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
6. Declarations
7. References
8. Supplementary Materials, where applicable

Introduction

The introduction should:

• provide a focused background to the topic;
• define the principal concepts and terminology;
• describe the theoretical, educational, or methodological context;
• identify the problem, inconsistency, or gap in existing scholarship;
• discuss relevant previous reviews;
• explain why an additional review is needed;
• state the review's originality and expected contribution;
• identify the review type; and
• present the review objective, question, or propositions clearly.

The introduction must not consist of an excessively broad literature summary. It should lead logically to a clearly defined and justified review objective.

Method

The Method section must provide sufficient information for readers, reviewers, and other researchers to understand, evaluate, audit, and, where applicable, reproduce the review process.

Review Design

State and justify the selected review design. Authors should explain why the chosen design is appropriate for the review objective and evidence base.

Protocol and Registration

Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and other eligible evidence syntheses should be prospectively registered or supported by a publicly accessible protocol where an appropriate registry or repository is available.

Authors must report the registration platform, registration number or persistent identifier, registration date, and substantive deviations from the protocol.

Review Question and Eligibility Framework

Authors should define the review question using an appropriate framework, such as PICO, PICOS, SPIDER, PCC, PECO, SPICE, or another framework suitable for the review design.

Eligibility Criteria

Clearly specify all inclusion and exclusion criteria, including:

• population or participant characteristics;
• educational level or setting;
• intervention, phenomenon, concept, or exposure;
• comparison conditions, where applicable;
• outcomes or constructs;
• research design;
• publication type;
• publication period;
• language restrictions;
• geographical restrictions; and
• publication-status restrictions.

All restrictions must be justified. Criteria must not be changed after the review findings are known without transparent disclosure and justification.

Information Sources

Identify all databases, registers, repositories, websites, citation indexes, organizational sources, and supplementary search methods. Report the final search date for each source.

Authors should use multiple relevant databases. Reliance on a single database requires a strong methodological justification.

Search Strategy

Report the complete search strategy for at least one principal database in the manuscript and provide complete strategies for all sources in the supplementary materials.

The search strategy should identify:

• keywords and controlled vocabulary;
• Boolean operators;
• field codes;
• proximity operators;
• filters and limits;
• database platform;
• search dates; and
• procedures for supplementary searching.

Study or Source Selection

Explain how records were deduplicated, screened, assessed for eligibility, and selected. State the number of reviewers involved, whether screening was conducted independently, and how disagreements were resolved.

Systematic and scoping reviews must present an appropriate flow diagram showing the numbers of identified, screened, excluded, and included records.

Data Extraction and Coding

Describe the extraction form, coding framework, reviewer procedures, pilot testing, verification process, and resolution of disagreements. Define all variables and outcomes extracted from the included sources.

Quality Appraisal or Risk of Bias

Identify and justify the appraisal instrument used. Report how appraisal was conducted, how disagreements were resolved, and how appraisal findings influenced the interpretation or synthesis.

Authors must not label a study as being of high or low quality without a clearly stated and appropriate assessment procedure.

Synthesis Method

Explain how extracted information was organized, compared, integrated, and interpreted. The synthesis method must be appropriate to the type, quality, and heterogeneity of the included evidence.

Meta-Analytical Procedures

Meta-analyses must additionally report:

• effect-size metric and calculation;
• procedures for transforming data;
• management of multiple outcomes and dependent effect sizes;
• fixed-effect or random-effects model;
• estimator and weighting method;
• heterogeneity statistics;
• confidence and prediction intervals;
• publication-bias assessment;
• sensitivity and influence analyses;
• subgroup or moderator analyses;
• software and package versions; and
• analytical code availability.

Bibliometric Procedures

Bibliometric reviews must describe:

• database selection;
• search query and search date;
• document types and coverage period;
• data export and conversion;
• duplicate removal and data cleaning;
• author, institution, and keyword disambiguation;
• citation-count date;
• full or fractional counting methods;
• network thresholds;
• normalization procedures;
• software and version; and
• parameters used to construct maps or clusters.

Reporting Guidelines

Authors must use the reporting guideline most appropriate to the review design. A completed checklist should be uploaded as a supplementary submission file.

Review type	Recommended reporting guideline
Systematic review	PRISMA 2020 and relevant extensions
Systematic-review abstract	PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts
Literature search in a systematic review	PRISMA-S
Systematic-review protocol	PRISMA-P
Scoping review	PRISMA-ScR
Review of reviews or umbrella review	PRIOR
Qualitative evidence synthesis	ENTREQ or another appropriate guideline
Narrative review	SANRA as an appraisal and quality framework
Bibliometric review	BIBLIO or another appropriate bibliometric reporting framework
Synthesis without meta-analysis	SWiM, where applicable

Reporting guidelines improve transparency but do not replace appropriate review methodology. Manuscripts may be rejected when they use a reporting checklist superficially without demonstrating a coherent and defensible review process.

Results or Review Findings

The Results section must present the findings of the review clearly, systematically, and without selective reporting.

Depending on the review type, this section should include:

• the results of the search and selection process;
• the number of included publications;
• the characteristics of the included studies or sources;
• geographical, methodological, theoretical, and temporal distributions;
• quality-appraisal or risk-of-bias results;
• thematic, conceptual, narrative, qualitative, or quantitative synthesis;
• meta-analytical findings, where applicable;
• heterogeneity and sensitivity results;
• publication-bias assessment, where applicable;
• areas of agreement and disagreement in the literature;
• evidence gaps; and
• unexpected or contradictory findings.

Results must not be mixed with unsupported interpretation. Tables and figures should be used to improve clarity rather than repeat information already presented in the text.

Discussion

The Discussion section should provide a critical and integrative interpretation of the review findings. It should not merely repeat the Results section.

The discussion should:

• summarize the principal findings;
• explain their theoretical and educational significance;
• compare findings with existing reviews and major scholarly positions;
• address conflicting or inconclusive evidence;
• consider the quality and strength of the evidence;
• identify methodological and conceptual limitations in the literature;
• discuss implications for STEM teaching, learning, assessment, policy, or research;
• avoid claims that exceed the available evidence; and
• provide specific and evidence-based directions for future research.

Limitations of the Review

Authors must explicitly discuss limitations arising from the review process, including:

• database coverage;
• search-term limitations;
• language or publication restrictions;
• publication bias;
• study quality;
• heterogeneity;
• missing or inaccessible evidence;
• subjectivity in screening, coding, or interpretation;
• limitations of the appraisal instrument;
• limitations of bibliometric databases or citation indicators; and
• restrictions on generalizability.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The conclusion should respond directly to the stated review objective or question. It must be based on the synthesized evidence and should not introduce new data, references, or arguments.

Authors should:

• state the central conclusion concisely;
• identify the review's main scholarly contribution;
• reflect the strength and limitations of the evidence;
• avoid overstating certainty or causality;
• provide realistic implications; and
• offer specific recommendations grounded in identified evidence gaps.

Tables and Figures

• Tables and figures must be numbered consecutively in the order in which they are cited.
• Every table and figure must be cited and discussed in the manuscript.
• Table titles should appear above the table.
• Figure captions should appear below the figure.
• Tables must be editable and must not be submitted as screenshots.
• Figures must be legible, professionally prepared, and supplied at an appropriate resolution.
• Text, symbols, and labels must remain readable when displayed at journal-page width.
• Authors must explain all abbreviations, symbols, and statistical notation in notes or captions.
• Reproduced or adapted material must include the source and evidence of permission where required.

Systematic and scoping reviews should normally include an appropriate study-selection flow diagram. Meta-analyses should provide forest plots and relevant diagnostic or sensitivity figures. Conceptual reviews may include an original framework or model when it materially clarifies the synthesis.

Citations and References

The journal uses the American Psychological Association, Seventh Edition (APA 7th edition) referencing style.

In-Text Citations

Authors should use the author-date citation system:

• Parenthetical citation: (Smith, 2024)
• Narrative citation: Smith (2024)
• Two authors: (Smith & Jones, 2024)
• Three or more authors: (Smith et al., 2024)

Reference List

• Every source cited in the manuscript must appear in the reference list.
• Every reference-list entry must be cited in the manuscript.
• References must be ordered alphabetically by the surname of the first author.
• Digital Object Identifiers must be presented as active https://doi.org/ links.
• Authors are responsible for verifying the accuracy, existence, and accessibility of every reference.
• Authors must verify whether cited publications have been corrected, withdrawn, or retracted.
• Retracted publications must not be treated as valid evidence unless their inclusion is explicitly justified for historical or research-integrity analysis.

Reference Example

Journal article:

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10, Article 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

Citation Integrity

Authors must represent cited sources accurately and fairly. The following practices are prohibited:

• fabricating references;
• citing publications that have not been verified;
• misrepresenting the findings of a cited source;
• using secondary citations as though the primary source had been examined;
• irrelevant or excessive self-citation;
• citation padding;
• coercive citation;
• selective citation intended to support a predetermined argument; and
• omitting relevant contradictory evidence without justification.

Data and Materials Availability

Authors should make review materials available in a suitable public repository whenever legally, ethically, and technically possible.

Materials may include:

• complete search strategies;
• deduplicated record lists;
• screening forms;
• full-text exclusion logs;
• data-extraction forms;
• coding manuals;
• appraisal decisions;
• analytical datasets;
• effect-size calculations;
• statistical code;
• bibliometric datasets; and
• supplementary tables.

Authors must not distribute copyrighted full-text publications, restricted database records, or confidential information without permission.

The manuscript must contain a Data Availability Statement explaining where the review materials can be accessed or why they cannot be shared.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must be limited to individuals who made substantial contributions to the conception, methodology, conduct, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of the review and who accept accountability for the final work.

The journal uses the CRediT taxonomy. Contributions may include:

• Conceptualization;
• Methodology;
• Software;
• Validation;
• Formal Analysis;
• Investigation;
• Resources;
• Data Curation;
• Writing – Original Draft;
• Writing – Review & Editing;
• Visualization;
• Supervision;
• Project Administration; and
• Funding Acquisition.

Guest authorship, honorary authorship, gift authorship, ghost authorship, and exclusion of qualified contributors are prohibited.

Conflicts of Interest and Funding

Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial interests that could influence or reasonably be perceived to influence the review.

Authors must report:

• funding sources;
• the role of the funder;
• employment or consultancy relationships;
• institutional or professional relationships;
• personal or academic conflicts;
• advocacy roles or intellectual commitments; and
• involvement in studies evaluated in the review.

When no conflict exists, authors should state:

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence tools, large language models, and chatbots cannot be listed as authors. Authors remain fully responsible for all submitted content.

Material use of artificial intelligence must be disclosed when it is used for:

• developing search terms;
• searching literature;
• screening records;
• extracting data;
• coding or classification;
• quality appraisal;
• statistical or bibliometric analysis;
• translation;
• visualization;
• drafting text; or
• language editing.

The disclosure must identify the tool, version where available, purpose, stage of use, and human-verification procedure.

Authors must independently verify all AI-assisted outputs, including references, quotations, classifications, extracted data, analytical results, and interpretations.

Confidential manuscripts, copyrighted full texts, restricted datasets, and personally identifiable information must not be uploaded to unauthorized AI platforms.

Ethical Approval

Reviews based exclusively on publicly available published literature do not ordinarily require new approval from a research ethics committee.

Ethical approval or data-use authorization may be required when a review involves:

• individual participant data;
• identifiable or confidential records;
• restricted unpublished datasets;
• direct contact with participants;
• data governed by specific consent conditions; or
• other protected information.

Where applicable, authors must report the approving institution, approval number, consent procedure, and relevant confidentiality safeguards.

Copyright and Permissions

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce or adapt copyrighted tables, figures, diagrams, instruments, frameworks, or substantial textual material.

Adapted or reproduced material must contain appropriate attribution and a statement identifying the copyright holder and permission status.

Cover Letter

The cover letter should:

• state the manuscript title and review type;
• explain its relevance to the journal;
• describe its principal contribution;
• explain how it differs from existing reviews;
• confirm that the manuscript is original and not under review elsewhere;
• identify the reporting guideline used;
• provide protocol registration details, where applicable;
• disclose related manuscripts, preprints, or previous versions;
• confirm approval by all authors; and
• disclose conflicts of interest and material AI use.

Peer Review and Revision

Submitted manuscripts will undergo an initial editorial assessment. Manuscripts may be rejected before peer review when they:

• fall outside the journal's scope;
• report primary research rather than a review;
• do not provide an original synthesis;
• lack a defensible review methodology;
• fail to justify the need for a new review;
• do not comply with the appropriate reporting standard;
• contain major language or presentation problems;
• contain unreliable or fabricated references;
• substantially duplicate a previous publication; or
• violate publication-ethics requirements.

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment will normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

When revision is requested, authors must submit:

1. a clean revised manuscript;
2. a marked or tracked-changes manuscript, where requested; and
3. a detailed point-by-point response to all editor and reviewer comments.

Each response should identify the revision made and indicate the relevant page, paragraph, table, or figure. When a recommendation is not followed, authors must provide a clear scholarly justification.

Language and Proofreading

Authors are responsible for the linguistic accuracy and readability of the manuscript. Manuscripts with serious grammatical, syntactic, or academic-writing problems may be returned before peer review.

Language editing does not guarantee acceptance. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly contribution, methodological quality, reporting transparency, and consistency with the journal's scope.

Pre-Submission Checklist

Before completing the submission, authors must confirm that:

• The manuscript is a review article and is consistent with the journal's aims and scope.
• The review type is clearly identified and methodologically appropriate.
• The need for the review and its difference from existing reviews are clearly explained.
• The manuscript follows the journal template.
• The manuscript complies with the relevant reporting guideline.
• A completed reporting checklist has been uploaded.
• The title page and anonymous manuscript have been submitted as separate files.
• All author-identifying information has been removed from the anonymous manuscript.
• The abstract contains 200–250 words.
• Five to seven keywords have been provided.
• The manuscript contains at least 50 relevant references.
• At least 80% of references are peer-reviewed journal articles.
• Current literature has been prioritized while appropriate foundational works have been retained.
• All citations correspond exactly with entries in the reference list.
• All references have been checked for accuracy, DOI information, correction, withdrawal, and retraction status.
• All tables and figures are cited, numbered, legible, and accompanied by appropriate titles or captions.
• Permission has been obtained for copyrighted material where required.
• Protocol registration information has been included where applicable.
• Search strategies, exclusion records, extraction materials, and analytical files have been provided where appropriate.
• Author contributions, funding, conflicts of interest, data availability, acknowledgements, and AI-use declarations have been included.
• The manuscript is not under consideration by another journal.
• All authors have approved the submitted version.

Non-Compliance with the Guidelines

Manuscripts that do not comply with these Author Guidelines may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected during the initial editorial assessment. Compliance with formatting requirements does not guarantee acceptance for publication.