For Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewer expertise is essential to maintaining OLJ’s commitment to high-quality, evidence-based scholarship in online, blended, and digital learning. Reviewers are expected to provide timely, constructive, and rigorous evaluations grounded in scholarly standards and ethical practice.

OLJ depends on dedicated academics like you to help us publish high-quality, empirical research that advances online and blended learning. Getting started is easy:

  1. Register or update your OLJ account and check “Yes, I would like to be contacted with requests to review submissions to this journal.”

  2. Add your areas of expertise to your profile so we can match you with manuscripts that fit your background.

To learn more about the peer review process, you can browse our Peer Reviewer Handbook or reach out to the managing editor directly with any questions.

Reviewers should use the OLJ Peer Review Form to structure their evaluation and recommendations.

Thank you for supporting academic peer review and helping strengthen scholarship in online and blended learning.

Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process ensures that published research:

  • Safeguards the integrity of the scholarly record.
  • Advances knowledge in online and digital learning
  • Demonstrates methodological and theoretical rigor
  • Contributes meaningfully to practice, policy, or future research
  • Aligns with OLJ’s mission to promote quality and innovation in online learning

Principles of Peer Review Conduct (Aligned with COPE Standards)

  1. General Responsibilities
  • Recognize that peer reviewers play a vital role in safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record and are bound by ethical obligations.
  • Accept review invitations only if you have the appropriate subject expertise and can complete the review within the agreed timeframe.
  • Conduct reviews objectively, constructively, and respectfully, avoiding hostility, bias, or derogatory remarks. Feedback should be clear, evidence-based, and helpful to authors.
  • Respect the confidentiality of manuscripts: do not disclose, use, or share any information gained through the review for personal advantage or to discredit others.
  • Declare all potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, professional, personal, or academic rivalries), seeking guidance from the journal when in doubt.
  • Respect intellectual property rights by acknowledging the originality of the work and recognizing the contributions of others.
  • Provide accurate personal and professional information, and never impersonate another reviewer.
  • Acknowledge that peer review is reciprocal and commit to doing your fair share of timely reviews.
  • Uphold the highest ethical standards, ensuring fairness, integrity, and respect throughout the review process.
  1. When Approached to Review
  • Respond promptly to invitations, especially if declining, so as not to delay the editorial process.
  • Accept only if you can provide a fair, unbiased, and timely review.
  • Clarify the scope of your expertise if you can assess only part of the manuscript.
  • Disclose all conflicts of interest, including close collaborations, institutional ties, or personal relationships with authors.
  • Re-review manuscripts afresh if previously reviewed for another journal, as both manuscripts and evaluation criteria may differ.
  • Suggest alternative reviewers only when appropriate, ensuring recommendations are free from personal bias or manipulation.
  • Decline to review if you cannot provide an impartial evaluation, if you are involved with the work, or if you have a competing manuscript under preparation.
  • Decline if you object to the peer-review model used by the journal (e.g., open review).
  • Never accept a review simply to gain early access to the manuscript.
  1. During the Review
  • Immediately inform the journal of any new conflicts of interest or inability to provide an unbiased review.
  • Read the manuscript, supplemental materials, and journal instructions thoroughly; request clarification or missing items if needed.
  • Do not involve others (e.g., mentees) in the review without prior journal approval, and acknowledge any contributions appropriately.
  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review materials.
  • Notify the journal promptly if delays arise, providing a realistic revised timeline. Timely reviews are essential to the dissemination of research and authors’ careers.
  • Report suspected ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate submissions, misconduct) confidentially to the journal without conducting your own investigation.
  • Reviewers should also assess whether required elements—such as ethical approvals, funding disclosures, AI use statements, and conflict of interest statements—are included and appropriate.
  • Avoid intentionally prolonging the review process or requesting unnecessary information.
  • Ensure your assessment is based solely on the merits of the work, avoiding bias or undue influence from external factors.
  • Do not contact authors directly without the journal’s permission.
  • Uploading manuscripts to AI tools or large language models (LLMs) (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, Copilot, etc.) or using AI-generated feedback is strictly prohibited, as it violates confidentiality, intellectual property protections, and peer review ethics. 
  1. Preparing the Report
  • Provide a fair, balanced, and constructive evaluation of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
  • Follow journal guidelines for report format, content, and structure.
  • Indicate clearly if you were asked to review only specific sections.
  • Support critical statements with evidence and references where relevant.
  • Suggest improvements for clarity, accuracy, or rigor, but avoid rewriting the manuscript in your own style.
  • Phrase feedback respectfully, being sensitive to authors writing in a second language.
  • Differentiate between essential revisions needed to support claims and optional suggestions that would extend the work.
  • Ensure the report reflects your own assessment and is not prepared by another person.
  1. After the Review
  • Continue to keep all manuscript details confidential.
  • Respond promptly to follow-up queries from the journal.
  • Notify the journal if new information arises that could affect your review or recommendation.
  • Review feedback from other reviewers, when provided, to strengthen your own understanding and practice.
  • Be willing to review revised or resubmitted versions of manuscripts you have previously assessed.

Reviewer Recognition and Verification
Reviewers receive confirmation by email when a review is completed. OLJ also issues annual certificates of appreciation recognizing reviews completed during the preceding calendar year. Reviewers who require additional verification for promotion, tenure, employment, or another formal institutional purpose may contact the editorial office. To protect peer-review confidentiality, verification documents identify the journal, reviewer, completion date or calendar year, and number of completed reviews but do not disclose manuscript titles, authors, recommendations, or editorial decisions.