The purpose of this page is to guide reviewers through expectations and the process of a review.

Main Goals

Reviewers should focus on article content and pay attention to details including resources, materials for the lesson, background context, setting, and assessments. Reviewers ensure that articles come with all the information needed to implement the lesson seamlessly in a classroom setting. Use the following information as a guide through the review process.  

Artificial Intelligence Use for Peer-Review

Peer-reviewers are selected for their expertise regarding manuscript topics and journal guidelines. The JTILT editorial team expects reviewers to rely on their expertise to evaluate the quality and suitability of manuscripts for the journal. The editorial team also expects reviewers to provide their own feedback regarding content accuracy, originality, audience suitability, and so forth. Circumventing this expert review process by leveraging generative AI for these tasks is unacceptable. Reviewer feedback should be original and substantive. However, the editorial team realizes that AI may be used to provide technical feedback regarding spelling/grammar and APA formatting. If used, this feedback should not be the focus of the overall review. When AI is used for these purposes, the reviewer should check AI output for accuracy and acknowledge that it was leveraged for those purposes.

 

Reviewing by Section

Reviewers are provided with a rubric for each article and are expected to leave detailed comments in the rubric.

Overview

The overview has a strict word count (125 word maximum) that must be followed. Reviewers make sure this section provides readers with a summary of the lesson, its outcomes, time requirements, and covered topics.

Materials

Ensure that all materials (e.g., instructor, student, and classroom materials) are clear, accurate, and utilized in the lesson. Also ensure that all materials described in the lesson are listed in the materials section.

Context-at-a-Glance

This section concisely (within 175 words) identifies setting, modality, class structure, organizational norms, learner and instructor characteristics, development rationale, and design frameworks (as applicable) that guided lesson development. A table describing these sections is located in the author guidelines page.

Reviewers check that any ideas presented in the context-at-a-glance section are expanded in the Context and setting section. Reviewers should ask about missing sections or insufficient descriptions.

Context and Setting

This section should be no longer than 1000 words. Reviewers ensure that this section directly aligns with the Context-at-a-Glance section but provides greater detail. Authors should summarize the background of the classroom, what prior learning led to the lesson, details regarding classroom norms and procedures, available tools, context on lesson development, typical instructional practices, and so forth. Reviewers check that descriptions included in the Context-at-a-Glance section are expanded in this section and provide context as to why and how the lesson was developed.

Lesson

The lesson section includes the article and all materials provided by the author. It should begin by page 3 or 4 at the latest. Reviewers examine how the lesson, materials, objectives, and assessments align. They also make sure the lesson and materials are described in sufficient detail to implement as is.

A few points to consider when reviewing the lesson include:

• Are the lesson objectives clearly stated and consistent throughout the article?
• Does the lesson use technology?
• Do stated objectives align with the purpose of the lesson?
• Are all materials/resources included in the lesson?
• Do materials align/fit with the purpose of the lesson?
• Are there gaps in the lesson that would confuse the reader?
• Does the author reference all materials in the article?
• Are the resources of good quality?
• Is the content suitable for the intended audience?
• Do the assessments directly align with the stated objectives and instructional strategies?

Reflection

The reflection is meant to provide a critique of implementation and tips for implementation. Reviewers check that the author(s) included both positive and negative implementation outcomes, describing what worked well and what did not work. The reflection should also consider possible adaptations, modifications, suggestions for subsequent implementations, and other relevant information.

A few points to consider in the reflection section include:

• Does the section highlight what worked well and what did not work well?
• Are tips included for successful implementations, modifications, and/or adaptations based on lessons learned?
• Were some decisions seemingly arbitrary or misinformed? How might they be clarified?
• Did the author consider the correct context when designing the lesson?
• Did the author leave out relevant aspects of the environment/setting that may have influenced implementation?
• Is this lesson accessible for every student? Do they need to make changes to ensure accessibility?