Reviewer Guidelines and Policy

i. Qualification
Reviewers must hold at least a master's degree in a relevant field, including but not limited to:
● Educational therapy, behavioural therapy, speech-language pathology, or occupational therapy
● Psychology, psychotherapy, counselling, or mental health and wellness
● Neuroscience, gerontology, geriatric care, or a related life or health science
● Special education, developmental sciences, or rehabilitation science

OR be registered as a practising therapist or counsellor with a recognised professional body, including but not limited to:
● Association of Educational Therapists (Singapore)
● British Psychological Society (BPS)
● Singapore Psychological Society (SPS)
● Singapore Association for Counselling (SAC)
● International Association of Counselors and Therapists (IACT)

ii. Publication and Expertise Record
● Has published a minimum of three peer-reviewed articles as lead or corresponding author in a topic relevant to the manuscript under review, with at least one article published within the past three years.
● In fields where expertise is not conventionally measured by publication record, or where demonstrable clinical or applied expertise exists, the nominating editor or author may provide a written explanation of the reviewer's suitability, which will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief. 

iii. Confidentiality
Reviewers are required to maintain the highest standards of confidentiality (see Confidentiality and Protection of Authors Policy).
● Treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents until formally published
● Do not share, discuss, or disclose any aspect of the manuscript or the review with any person outside the formal review process without explicit editor permission
● Do not retain unpublished manuscripts for personal use or reference after completing the review
● Do not appropriate authors' ideas, data, or findings prior to publication
● If assistance from a colleague or trainee is sought in completing the review, the reviewer must first obtain explicit editor permission. The name of any contributor to the review must be disclosed to the editor, and that individual must observe the same confidentiality obligations
● Discouraged from publicly discussing authors’ work

iv. Citation Manipulation
● Request to add citations where the motivations are merely self-promotional violates publication ethics and is unethical (see Citation Manipulation Policy).
● Reviewers must not request the addition of citations where the motivation is self-promotion or to artificially inflate citation counts, whether of their own work, colleagues' work, or any specific journal.
● Any suggestion to add references must be justified on grounds of scholarly completeness, accuracy, or correction of a factual omission, not editorial or personal interest.
● Acceptance of citation-related suggestions remains at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

v. Timeliness
● Reviews must be accepted only if the review could be completed and returned within 21 days of accepting the review invitation, unless an alternative deadline has been agreed in writing with the handling editor.
● Reviewers who are unable to complete a review within the agreed timeframe must notify the editor promptly so that an alternative reviewer can be sought without delay to the author.
● The Asian Educational Therapist monitors review turnaround times as part of its commitment to editorial transparency.

 

2. Independence and Conflict of Interest

Editorial independence and the proper management of conflicts of interest are foundational requirements of scholarly publishing. The journal requires all reviewers to uphold the highest standards of independence and to declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation.

i.  The Principle of Independence
Peer review must be conducted solely on the basis of the manuscript's scholarly merit. Reviewers must not allow personal, financial, professional, institutional, or ideological considerations to influence their evaluation of a manuscript. The integrity of the review process depends on each reviewer's commitment to objective, evidence-based assessment. The journal's double-anonymised review model is designed to protect this independence. However, anonymisation alone does not remove conflicts of interest; reviewers must proactively identify and declare any situation that could, or could reasonably be perceived to compromise their objectivity.

ii.  What Constitutes a Conflict of Interest
In accordance with the journal's Conflict of Interest Policy, reviewers must declare any of the following before accepting or during the course of a review:

Financial Conflicts:
● Current or anticipated financial relationship with any author, including shared grants, research funding, consultancy fees, honoraria, or stock ownership in a company with interests in the manuscript's findings
● Employment by, or financial dependence on, an organisation with a direct interest in the manuscript's conclusions
● Pending patent applications or commercial interests directly related to the manuscript's subject matter

Personal and Professional Conflicts:
● Current or recent (within three years) collaborative, supervisory, or mentorship relationship with any author
● Close personal relationship such as familial, close friendship, or known enmity, with any author
● Current employment at the same institution as any author, unless the institution is demonstrably large enough that the reviewer and author are in wholly separate departments with no professional contact
● Having served as a supervisor, PhD examiner, or postdoctoral mentor to any author

Intellectual and Ideological Conflicts:
● Strong prior public commitment in published work, conference presentations, or public statements, to a position directly and substantially affirmed or challenged by the manuscript under review
● Strong political, religious, or ideological conviction that would prevent objective evaluation of the manuscript's conclusions

Competitive Conflicts:
● The manuscript is substantially similar to work the reviewer has in preparation, under review at another journal, or recently submitted
● The reviewer stands to gain a competitive advantage, or suffers a competitive disadvantage — from the manuscript's publication or delay

iii.  Declaration and Recusal
Upon receipt of a review invitation, reviewers must carefully consider whether any conflict of interest exists before accepting. If a conflict exists:
● The reviewer must decline the invitation and notify the editor of the nature of the conflict (specific details need not be disclosed if doing so would itself breach confidentiality)
● If a conflict becomes apparent after the review has commenced, the reviewer must notify the editor immediately and withdraw from the review
● Reviewers may decline an invitation at any time and for any reason; a brief explanation is appreciated but not required
● Reviewers who are uncertain whether a relationship or interest constitutes a conflict of interest should contact the editorial office for guidance before proceeding

iv.  Consequences of Non-Disclosure
Failure to declare a known conflict of interest is a serious breach of publication ethics under journal's guidelines. The journal reserves the right to reject a review, retract a published article, or report non-disclosure to the reviewer's institution where a material conflict of interest was known and not declared. Apparent conflicts of interest, even where the reviewer believes their objectivity was unaffected, must be declared, as the perception of bias is itself harmful to the integrity of the scholarly record.

See the full Conflict of Interest Policy.

 

3. Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Review Process

i.  Confidentiality of Manuscripts and Review Reports
Submitted manuscripts must be treated as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript, or any portion of their peer review report, into a generative AI tool, including but not limited to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity, or equivalent large language model platforms. Doing so may:
● Violate the author's confidentiality and proprietary rights over unpublished work
● Breach data privacy obligations where the manuscript contains personally identifiable information
● Contravene the terms and conditions of JAET's Confidentiality and Protection of Authors Policy

ii.  AI Must Not Be Used for Scientific Evaluation
The peer review report must be written by the reviewer. Generative AI tools must not be used to assist in the scientific evaluation of a manuscript, including the assessment of methodology, interpretation of findings, appraisal of statistical approaches, or formulation of the recommendation. The reasons are:
● The critical thinking, independent scholarly judgement, and subject-matter expertise required for peer review are human responsibilities that cannot be ethically delegated to AI
● AI tools may generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript
The reviewer is solely responsible and accountable for the content of the review report, regardless of any tools used in its preparation

iii.  Permissible Limited Use
Basic grammar, spelling, and punctuation checking using standard tools is permissible, provided no manuscript content is uploaded to an external AI system. Reviewers who are uncertain whether a specific tool or use case is permissible must contact the editorial office before proceeding.

iv.  Consequences of Breach
Breach of this policy, including uploading manuscript content to a generative AI platform, constitutes a serious ethical violation. The journal reserves the right to remove reviewers in breach of this policy from the reviewer database and to report the matter to the reviewer's institution in accordance with COPE guidelines.

See the full Artificial Intelligence Policy.

 

4. Reporting Obligations: Academic Misconduct and Plagiarism

Reviewers play a critical role in upholding the integrity of the scholarly record. If a reviewer identifies potential academic misconduct in a manuscript under review, they must report this to the handling editor immediately via the journal's portal, rather than simply recommending rejection without explanation.

i.  Reportable Concerns
Reviewers must alert the editor to any of the following concerns:
● Fabricated, falsified, or manipulated data, results, or images
● Plagiarised content , including undisclosed text recycling from the authors' own prior publications (self-plagiarism)
● Suspected undisclosed duplicate or concurrent submission of the same manuscript to another journal
● Undisclosed prior publication of substantially the same work
● Unethical research practices, including absence of ethics approval, informed consent violations, or participant confidentiality breaches
● Image manipulation beyond permissible adjustments

ii.  How to Report
Concerns must be communicated confidentially to the editor through the journal platform messaging system. Reviewers must not contact the author directly, act unilaterally, or disclose their concerns to third parties. The journal will investigate all concerns in accordance with COPE flowcharts and guidelines. The reviewer's identity will be protected throughout any investigation.

iii.  Plagiarism Detection
Reviewers must not use external plagiarism detection platforms to check submitted manuscripts. Uploading manuscript content to any external platform, including iThenticate, Turnitin, or AI-powered similarity tools, would violate the author's confidentiality. The journal conducts its own plagiarism screening using licensed tools prior to peer review assignment. If a reviewer suspects plagiarism on the basis of their own knowledge of the literature, they should communicate this to the editor with specific references where possible.

See the full Academic Misconduct Policy and Plagiarism Policy.

 

5. Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review

The journal is committed to equitable, inclusive, and bias-free peer review in accordance with its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Policy to in promoting transparency and best practice. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts solely on the basis of scientific merit.

i.  Prohibited Bases for Evaluation
Evaluation must not be influenced, positively or negatively, by any of the following characteristics of the author(s) or their institution:
● Nationality, ethnicity, or country of origin
● Institutional affiliation, prestige, or geographic location
● Gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation
● Religion, political belief, or ideological position
● Language background or English proficiency (where the scientific content is sound)
● Career stage or academic seniority

ii.  Unconscious Bias
Reviewers are encouraged to reflect on potential sources of unconscious bias in their evaluation — including assumptions about the geographic origin of research, the relevance of non-Western contexts, or the credibility of work from less prestigious institutions. Where a reviewer becomes aware that bias may be affecting their evaluation, they are encouraged to declare this to the editor and, where appropriate, withdraw from the review without penalty.

iii.  Inclusive Language in Review Reports
Review reports must be written respectfully and professionally. Comments that are dismissive, condescending, or personal in nature, rather than focused on the manuscript's scholarly content, are contrary to the journal's values. The editor reserves the right to redact or decline to forward review reports that contain inappropriate language before transmitting feedback to authors.

See the full Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Policy.

 

6. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

To support consistent, high-quality, and transparent peer review, reviewers are asked to evaluate submitted manuscripts against a set of criteria. Detailed guidance is provided in the journal's Review Form, which accompanies each accepted review invitation.

 

7. Review Recommendations and Outcomes

Upon completing the review, reviewers submit a completed the Review Form and provide one of the following recommendations:

Recommendation	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript is suitable for publication with no further changes required. This outcome is rare at first review.
Minor Revision	The manuscript is of acceptable quality but requires minor corrections, clarifications, or additions. The revised manuscript may be assessed by the editor without returning to the reviewer.
Major Revision	The manuscript has merit but requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication. The revised manuscript will be returned to the original reviewer(s) for re-evaluation.
Reject	The manuscript does not meet the standards required for publication in JAET. Reviewers should provide clear, specific, and constructive reasons for rejection to assist authors in improving their work for submission elsewhere.

 

8. Post-Review Responsibilities

Once the Review Form is submitted, the reviewer's formal obligations to that manuscript are complete unless the editor requests re-evaluation of a revised submission.
● Reviewers must continue to treat the manuscript and review as confidential until formal publication, regardless of the outcome
● Any concerns about ethical issues arising from the manuscript after review should be communicated promptly and confidentially to the Editor-in-Chief

 

9. Complaints and Appeals

Authors who receive a rejection decision have the right to appeal. Reviewers may be asked by the Editor-in-Chief to provide written clarification of specific points raised in their review report in the event of a formal appeal. Reviewers are required to respond to such requests within 10 business days. The identity of the reviewer will not be disclosed to the author at any stage of the appeals process.

Reviewers who have concerns about the editorial process, including how their review was handled or communicated, may also raise these confidentially with the Editor-in-Chief.

See the full Complaints and Appeals Policy.