Peer-Review Process

General Policy

The Review Journal of Higher-Order Thinking and Metacognition applies a rigorous peer-review process to evaluate the scholarly contribution, methodological quality, reporting transparency, ethical compliance, and relevance of submitted review articles.

The journal exclusively publishes review articles and scholarly evidence syntheses. Therefore, each manuscript is evaluated not only for the accuracy and significance of its subject matter, but also for the appropriateness and transparency of its review methodology.

The journal normally applies a double-anonymous peer-review process. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements, document metadata, and other identifying information from the manuscript submitted for peer review.

1. Technical and Administrative Screening

After submission, the editorial office conducts an initial technical examination to determine whether the submission is complete and complies with the journal's basic requirements.

The technical screening includes verification of:

the completeness of the submission files;
use of the journal's manuscript template;
separation of the title page and anonymous manuscript;
compliance with the journal's article type and scope;
the presence of an abstract and keywords;
the completeness of author declarations;
the availability of the appropriate reporting checklist;
the inclusion of supplementary materials where required;
the consistency of citations and references; and
the removal of author-identifying information from the review file.

Manuscripts that do not comply with the technical requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before editorial assessment. Technical compliance does not imply that the manuscript will proceed to peer review.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

A manuscript that passes the technical screening is evaluated by the Principal Editor or a designated handling editor. The purpose of this stage is to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for external peer review.

The editor considers:

alignment with the journal's aims and scope;
the appropriateness of the stated review type;
the clarity and significance of the review objective;
the justification for conducting a new review;
the manuscript's contribution beyond existing reviews;
the suitability of the review methodology;
the transparency of the search, selection, appraisal, and synthesis procedures;
compliance with the relevant reporting guideline;
the quality and currency of the literature used;
the clarity of academic writing and presentation;
the integrity of citations and references; and
compliance with publication ethics.

The editor may reject a manuscript without external review when it:

falls outside the journal's scope;
reports primary empirical research rather than a review article;
does not provide a meaningful scholarly synthesis;
substantially duplicates an existing review without a justified contribution;
uses an inappropriate or inadequately explained review method;
contains serious reporting deficiencies;
does not comply with the journal's ethical requirements;
contains unreliable, inaccurate, or fabricated references;
shows evidence of plagiarism or redundant publication; or
requires fundamental redevelopment before it could be reviewed fairly.

A desk-rejection decision is made by the editor and does not require external reviewer reports.

3. Similarity and Research-Integrity Check

Manuscripts may be examined using similarity-detection software and other editorial checks. Similarity reports are interpreted by the editorial team and are not treated as automatic evidence of misconduct.

The journal evaluates whether similarities arise from properly cited material, common methodological terminology, references, preprints, earlier versions, self-plagiarism, unattributed copying, or substantial duplication.

Editors may also examine:

the existence and accuracy of cited publications;
the retraction or correction status of important sources;
the consistency of reported search and screening numbers;
possible duplicate counting of studies or datasets;
unexplained inconsistencies in extracted data;
citation manipulation;
undisclosed overlapping publications; and
possible use of fabricated or AI-generated references.

4. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally assigned to at least two independent peer reviewers. Reviewers are selected according to their subject expertise, review methodology expertise, publication record, professional experience, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

Where feasible, the journal seeks complementary reviewer expertise:

one reviewer with expertise in the substantive topic, such as higher-order thinking, metacognition, STEM education, educational psychology, assessment, or learning sciences; and
one reviewer with expertise in systematic review, meta-analysis, scoping review, bibliometric analysis, qualitative evidence synthesis, conceptual review, or another relevant review methodology.

Suggested reviewers provided by authors may be considered, but the editor is not obligated to invite them. Authors may also identify individuals who should not be invited due to a documented conflict of interest. The final selection of reviewers remains the responsibility of the editor.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide an independent, objective, evidence-based, constructive, and respectful assessment. Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, hostile language, and unsupported recommendations are not acceptable.

Reviewers should evaluate, where applicable:

the clarity and relevance of the title;
the accuracy and completeness of the abstract;
the significance and originality of the review question;
the justification for undertaking the review;
the treatment of existing reviews on the same topic;
the appropriateness of the review design;
the clarity of inclusion and exclusion criteria;
the adequacy and reproducibility of the search strategy;
the appropriateness of the information sources;
the transparency of screening and study-selection procedures;
the reliability of data extraction and coding;
the quality-appraisal or risk-of-bias procedure;
the appropriateness of the synthesis method;
the handling of heterogeneity and publication bias, where applicable;
the accuracy of statistical or bibliometric analyses;
the balance and completeness of evidence representation;
the treatment of contradictory or non-supportive evidence;
the validity of interpretations and conclusions;
the adequacy of the limitations section;
the significance of theoretical and practical implications;
the accuracy and relevance of citations;
compliance with the relevant reporting guideline; and
compliance with publication-ethics requirements.

Reviewers should not require authors to apply systematic-review standards to narrative, theoretical, or conceptual reviews when such requirements are inconsistent with the declared review design. However, every review article must present a transparent and defensible account of how the literature was selected, analysed, and interpreted.

6. Confidentiality of Peer Review

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, supplementary files, and all materials associated with the peer-review process must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals;
use unpublished ideas or findings for personal advantage;
contact the authors directly about the submission;
disclose their reviewer role without editorial authorization;
upload the manuscript to an unauthorized third-party platform; or
upload confidential manuscript material to artificial intelligence tools that do not provide adequate confidentiality and data protection.

A reviewer who wishes to involve a colleague, student, or co-reviewer must first obtain permission from the editor. Any approved contributor must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflict that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.

A reviewer or editor should normally withdraw when:

there is a direct supervisory or employment relationship with an author;
there has been recent and substantial collaboration with an author;
there is a close personal relationship or significant professional dispute;
the reviewer or editor contributed to the reviewed project or publication;
there is a financial interest in the manuscript's outcome;
there is an institutional or intellectual conflict that may impair objectivity; or
the individual believes that an impartial assessment cannot be provided.

The existence of a professional acquaintance does not automatically constitute a conflict. The editor evaluates the nature, recency, and significance of the relationship before determining whether reassignment is necessary.

8. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision. Minor editorial corrections may still be required.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited clarification, correction, reporting improvement, or presentation adjustment. The principal review design and conclusions remain fundamentally sound.

Major Revision

The manuscript has potential but requires substantial improvement in its methodology, reporting, synthesis, interpretation, organization, or engagement with the literature. A major-revision decision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

Reject

The manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, applies an inappropriate review design, substantially duplicates existing work, or does not satisfy the journal's methodological or ethical standards.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the editor after considering the quality, consistency, and reasoning of the reviewer reports.

9. Editorial Decision

The handling editor evaluates the reviewer reports and may:

accept the reviewers' recommendations;
give greater weight to the more methodologically justified report;
request clarification from a reviewer;
invite an additional reviewer;
conduct an additional editorial assessment; or
make a different decision when the reviewer recommendation is not adequately supported.

Conflicting reviewer recommendations do not automatically result in rejection. The editor evaluates the reasons underlying the disagreement and may seek an additional independent assessment.

Editorial decisions are communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's submission system. Reviewer comments may be edited to remove identifying information, inappropriate language, irrelevant material, or statements that breach confidentiality.

10. Revision Process

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must submit:

a clean revised manuscript;
a marked or tracked-changes version, when requested; and
a detailed point-by-point response to the editor and reviewers.

The response document should:

reproduce or clearly identify each reviewer comment;
explain the revision made in response;
identify the relevant page, paragraph, table, or figure;
provide evidence or methodological justification where needed; and
explain respectfully why a recommendation was not followed.

Authors must not merely state that a comment has been addressed. The response should indicate precisely what was changed and where the change appears.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, evaluated by the handling editor, or sent to new reviewers when additional expertise is needed.

11. Additional Review Rounds

A manuscript may undergo more than one round of revision. Additional review is required when important methodological, analytical, ethical, or interpretive concerns remain unresolved.

Authors are expected to respond within the revision period stated in the editorial decision. An extension may be requested before the deadline. A manuscript may be closed or treated as withdrawn when the authors do not submit a revision and do not contact the editorial office within the permitted period.

12. Final Editorial and Integrity Check

Before acceptance, the editor may conduct a final examination of:

responses to reviewer comments;
compliance with the journal template;
accuracy and completeness of references;
consistency between the abstract, results, and conclusions;
reporting-guideline compliance;
protocol registration and disclosed deviations;
study-selection numbers and flow diagrams;
tables, figures, appendices, and supplementary materials;
conflict-of-interest, funding, authorship, and AI-use declarations;
data-availability information;
copyright permissions; and
remaining ethical or research-integrity concerns.

Acceptance may be delayed or withdrawn if serious problems are identified during the final check.

13. Acceptance and Production

A manuscript is accepted only after the editor determines that it meets the journal's scholarly, methodological, reporting, ethical, and presentation standards.

Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, layout, author proofreading, and publication. Copyediting and proofreading do not constitute a new peer-review stage, but substantive concerns identified during production may be referred back to the editor.

Authors are responsible for checking proofs carefully. Proof corrections should normally be limited to typographical, formatting, factual, and production errors. Substantial changes after acceptance require editorial approval.

14. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual, methodological, procedural, or ethical error affected the decision.

An appeal must:

identify the manuscript and decision being appealed;
state the specific grounds for the appeal;
provide evidence supporting the claim of error;
address the editor's and reviewers' main concerns; and
avoid personal criticism or unsupported allegations.

Disagreement with the editorial outcome alone is not sufficient grounds for appeal. Appeals should not simply repeat arguments already considered during peer review.

Where reasonably possible, an appeal will be examined by an editor or qualified Editorial Board member who was not primarily responsible for the original decision. The outcome of the appeal may be to uphold the decision, reopen the review, obtain an additional assessment, or revise the decision.

15. Complaints about Peer Review

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, editorial procedure, discriminatory treatment, inappropriate language, or possible manipulation of peer review may be submitted to the journal.

Complaints will be documented and evaluated confidentially. The journal may consult relevant editors, reviewers, Editorial Board members, institutional representatives, or independent experts when necessary.

16. Suspected Misconduct During Peer Review

When suspected misconduct is identified before or during peer review, the editorial process may be suspended while the concern is assessed.

Suspected misconduct may include:

plagiarism;
fabricated or falsified references;
fabricated search, screening, extraction, or appraisal records;
duplicate publication;
undisclosed protocol deviations;
selective omission of relevant evidence;
duplicate counting of studies or datasets;
manipulation of statistical or bibliometric findings;
citation manipulation;
undisclosed conflicts of interest;
inappropriate authorship;
reviewer impersonation;
fake reviewer accounts;
reviewer collusion; or
unauthorized disclosure of confidential manuscripts.

The journal will distinguish, as far as reasonably possible, between honest error, methodological disagreement, negligent practice, and deliberate misconduct.

17. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers remain personally responsible for all editorial assessments, recommendations, and decisions.

Artificial intelligence must not be used as an independent reviewer or decision-maker. AI-generated comments must not replace expert scholarly judgment.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, supplementary files, unpublished data, or identifying information to external AI systems unless such use has been expressly authorized by the journal and the system provides adequate confidentiality, copyright, and data-protection safeguards.

Any authorized material use of AI in preparing a review report must be disclosed to the editor. The reviewer remains responsible for verifying the accuracy, appropriateness, originality, and professional tone of the submitted report.

18. Indicative Review Timeline

The journal aims to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining methodological and editorial rigor. The duration of review may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, review type, revision quality, and the need for additional specialist assessment.

The journal does not guarantee a fixed decision period. Authors can monitor the status of their submission through the OJS submission system. Repeated requests for status updates should be avoided while the manuscript remains within the normal review period.

19. Editorial Authority

The Principal Editor and designated handling editors retain final responsibility for editorial decisions. Reviewer recommendations are essential to the evaluation process but do not transfer editorial responsibility to the reviewers.

The editor may reject, delay, suspend, reopen, correct, or withdraw an editorial decision when new methodological, ethical, legal, or publication-integrity information becomes available.