Guidance for Reviewers

Dear Reviewers,

We are incredibly grateful for all you do. Peer reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and scholarly impact of IJTBL. We thank you for your time, expertise, and commitment to advancing high-quality scholarship in Team-Based Learning.

Scope of the Review

Reviews should be written in English and provide clear, constructive, and actionable feedback. Reviewers are encouraged to briefly summarize the manuscript and its contribution before offering evaluative comments.

Evaluation should address the originality and significance of the work, the rigor of the methodology and statistical analysis where applicable, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Reviewers should comment on clarity, organization, and overall presentation, and identify any ethical concerns, including potential plagiarism or inappropriate content. Specific and practical suggestions for improvement are strongly encouraged.

Recommendations

  • Reviewer Recommendation: This will be displayed to the author, and is the basis of all editorial decisions. It can not be changed by the editors, and is your primary recommendation. Your options are Accept, Decline, Minor Revisions or Major Revisions. Major Revisions require a second round of reviews, whereas Minor Revisions do not.
  • Recommendation: This is a default list in the OJS system, and secondary to your previous Reviewer Recommendation. Your options are Accept Submission, Revisions Required (Equivalent to Minor Revisions), Resubmit for Review (Equivalent to Major Revisions), Resubmit Elsewhere (Equivalent to Decline), Decline Submission and See Comments. If in doubt which option to select, please choose “See Comments”.

Structure of Reviewer Comments

To enhance clarity, reviewers are encouraged to organize feedback by manuscript section (for example, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) and distinguishing between minor and major concerns:

  • Major Concerns: Issues affecting validity, interpretation, or scholarly contribution.
  • Minor Concerns: Issues with such as clarity, formatting, or reference issues.

Reviewers may also provide confidential comments to the editor when necessary, particularly if concerns cannot be appropriately communicated directly to the authors.

At IJTBL we publish a variety of manuscript types beyond the traditional research paper, each with their own unique requirements. Please be sure to align your review to the submission type.

Submission Types

Original Research Reports:

Original research reports may include any research related to TBL and active learning, including studies with positive outcomes (confirming results) or negative outcomes (disconfirming results). 

Original research manuscripts may be up to 5000 words, with a 250-word abstract, and up to 40 references. 

Tables/figures are recommended and each article may contain up to five tables/figures. These manuscripts should contain an Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Supplementary information may be included. 

Evaluation criteria:

  • The manuscript is complete (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion)
  • The manuscript is clearly written
  • The manuscript significantly contributes to Team-Based and/or Active Learning literature
  • The manuscript is well grounded in theory and literature
  • The manuscript falls within the scope of IJTBL
  • The manuscript presents a novel investigation of a research question significant to Team-Based and/or Active Learning 

Brief Research Report: 

A brief research report is intended to showcase original research, preliminary research, or brief observations more concisely than original research articles.

These may include studies with positive outcomes (confirming results) or negative outcomes (disconfirming results).

While data is necessary, generally there are less details than an original research manuscript.

Brief research reports may be up to 2000 words, with a 150-word abstract, and up to 20 references. Up to two tables/figures may be included.

These manuscripts should contain an Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Supplementary information may be included if warranted.

Evaluation criteria:

  • The manuscript is complete (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion)
  • The manuscript is clearly written
  • The manuscript significantly contributes to Team-Based and/or Active Learning literature
  • The manuscript is well grounded in theory and literature
  • The manuscript falls within the scope of IJTBL
  • The manuscript presents a novel investigation of a research question significant to Team-Based and/or Active Learning

Systematic Review: 

Systematic reviews should include a synthesis of the current TBL and active learning research with a description of the aggregated evidence related to a specific research question.

Systematic reviews must use the PRISMA (http://prisma-statement.org/) reporting guidelines.

They should include an Introduction, Methods (including systematic review protocol; search strategy; data sources, data extraction and analysis), Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.

A PRISMA flow diagram is required.

They may be up to 5000 words with a 250-word abstract. Longer papers will be considered if merited. Tables/figures are recommended and each article may contain up to five tables/figures. There is no limit for references.

Evaluation criteria:

  • The manuscript is complete (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion)
  • The manuscript is clearly written
  • The manuscript significantly contributes to Team-Based and/or Active Learning literature
  • The manuscript is well grounded in theory and literature
  • The manuscript falls within the scope of IJTBL
  • PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed (http://prisma-statement.org/)

Innovation: 

Innovations are intended to highlight novel how-to tips and original ideas related to TBL and active learning. Rigorous research data are not necessary, but an account of the author’s own experiences with the innovation should be included, alongside a clear explanation of implementation and sufficient detail for replication or adaptation by readers.

Innovations are intended to showcase new thoughts or observations that have not been widely researched within the TBL community.

Innovations may be up to 1000 words, with a 100-word abstract, and up to 10 references. Longer papers will be considered if merited.

Evaluation criteria:

  • The manuscript is appropriately organized, clearly written and concise
  • The submission presents a novel idea, strategy, tool, or practical tip related to Team-Based and/or Active Learning
  • The innovation is original and not widely established within the literature or TBL community
  • The manuscript clearly explains how the innovation is implemented
  • The manuscript provides sufficient detail for replication or adaptation by readers

Perspective: 

A perspective article presents authors' opinions, viewpoints, or interpretations related to recent TBL and active learning related research, trends, or innovations.

All perspectives must be constructive and should be supported by evidence (i.e., they may not include unpublished data).

They may be up to 750 words with a 100-word abstract. Up to 10 references may be included. One table/figure may be included. Longer papers will be considered if merited. 

Evaluation criteria:

  • The manuscript is appropriately organized, clearly written, focused, and concise
  • The article presents a thoughtful opinion, interpretation, or viewpoint relevant to Team-Based and/or Active Learning
  • The perspective addresses a timely issue, trend, innovation, or debate of interest to readers
  • Arguments are constructive, scholarly, and supported by evidence or published literature
  • The perspective offers insight, implications, or recommendations for practice or future scholarship

Technology Report: 

Technology reports are intended to critique a technology used in the classroom for TBL and active learning.

Technologies presented must have been tested by the author to be considered for publication.

Evaluation criteria:

  • The manuscript is appropriately organized, well written and concise
  • The submission evaluates or critiques a technology relevant to Team-Based and/or Active Learning
  • The context of use is clearly described (course, learners, setting, purpose)
  • The manuscript explains how the technology supports learning
  • Strengths and limitations of the technology are discussed fairly
  • Practical considerations are addressed (cost, access, usability, training, scalability, privacy, etc., as applicable)
  • The manuscript falls within the scope of IJTBL offers useful recommendations for educators considering the technology
  • The technology has been directly tested or used by the author(s)

Letters to the Editor: 

Letters may include professional opinions, intriguing questions, classroom experiences, and lessons learned. Letters must be less than 500 words.  

Evaluation Criteria:

  • The submission is clearly written, concise and focused
  • The letter presents a professional opinion, question, experience, or lesson learned of relevance to IJTBL readers
  • The content adds meaningful dialogue, reflection, or insight
  • The tone is respectful, constructive, and appropriate for scholarly discourse
  • Any factual claims are accurate and appropriately supported when needed

Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the principles outlined in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers).

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript content and not to share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript outside the formal review process. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and must not be used for personal, professional, or research advantage.

Reviewers should decline an invitation if they have any conflict of interest or if the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise. Any potential conflicts should be disclosed to the editor immediately. Reviews must be objective, fair, and grounded in scholarly merit rather than personal opinion.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

Because submitted manuscripts are unpublished and confidential, reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript into generative artificial intelligence tools or external platforms. If AI tools are used in any aspect of preparing the review (such as refining language in the reviewer’s own comments) this use must be transparently disclosed within the review report. Failure to adhere to this policy may result in removal from the reviewer pool.

Reviewer Misconduct

IJTBL takes the integrity of the peer review process seriously. Misconduct may include breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, submission of fraudulent or fabricated reviews, identity misrepresentation, or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence tools. Confirmed misconduct may result in removal from the reviewer pool and, where warranted, notification of affiliated institutions.

Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

IJTBL values the essential contributions of reviewers. Reviews may be assessed for timeliness, constructiveness, and alignment with journal standards. Outstanding reviewers may be recognized through annual acknowledgment, certificates of service, and eligibility for distinction awards.