Become a PAJE Reviewer

Reviewer Onboarding Guide

Welcome to the PAJE Reviewer Panel

1. Welcome and Why Your Role Matters

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer for the Pancen Journal of Education (PAJE). Peer review is the foundation of scholarly publishing — without the volunteered expertise of reviewers like you, no journal can credibly claim that the work it publishes has been validated by the academic community.

PAJE's mission is to advance evidence-based educational scholarship in Nigeria. Every review you provide directly shapes what becomes part of the documented record of Nigerian education. Your work helps authors strengthen their manuscripts, protects readers from flawed or misleading claims, and signals to indexing services and the wider community that PAJE is a serious, rigorous outlet.

We do not take your time for granted. This guide tells you exactly what we expect, how we will treat you, and how to do this work well.

2. What PAJE Is and What We Publish

Focus. PAJE is a peer-reviewed, open-access, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to scholarship on education in the Nigerian context, with welcome contributions from comparative and international perspectives.

Scope. PAJE publishes work across curriculum and pedagogy, educational policy and governance, teacher education, educational psychology, ICT in education, school leadership, educational foundations, and related areas at all levels of the educational system.

Article types. Empirical research (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods), situational analyses, case studies, systematic reviews, theoretical and conceptual papers, policy analyses, and book reviews.

What sets PAJE apart. We privilege empirical rigour, practical relevance to Nigerian education, and clarity of contribution. We are not interested in manuscripts that simply rehash existing literature, present opinion as evidence, or are clearly designed for promotion rather than scholarship.

Before your first review, please read the journal's full Focus and Scope statement on the journal website.

3. Your Profile and What We Match You With

You were invited to join the PAJE reviewer panel because of your demonstrated expertise. To help us match you with manuscripts where your judgement will be most valuable, please ensure your reviewer profile in PAJE includes:

  • Your full name, institutional affiliation, and ORCID iD (if you don't have an ORCID, please create one free at orcid.org)
  • Your highest qualification and current academic position
  • Three to six reviewing interests in plain keywords (e.g., "early childhood literacy," "teacher motivation," "mathematics pedagogy," "education policy in Northern Nigeria")
  • Your preferred methodological strengths (e.g., "qualitative case study," "quantitative survey research," "mixed methods," "policy analysis")
  • Languages you can review in (PAJE publishes in English; some reviewers also offer review in Hausa, Yoruba, or Igbo for specific contexts)
  • Your availability — including any periods (sabbaticals, exam seasons, fieldwork) when you cannot accept reviews

Profile updates can be made at any time through your OJS account. Accurate profiles let us avoid wasting your time with manuscripts outside your expertise.

4. The Review Invitation Process

How invitations work

  1. A Section Editor identifies you as a suitable reviewer for a specific manuscript
  2. You receive an email containing:
    • The manuscript title and abstract
    • The submission's broad topic area
    • The review deadline (typically four weeks from acceptance)
    • A link to accept or decline within OJS
  3. Please respond within five (5) working days, even if your answer is "no"
  4. If you accept, you gain access to the full manuscript and the structured review form
  5. If you decline, please suggest one or two alternative reviewers if you can

When to decline

You should decline when:

  • You lack expertise in the specific subject or methodology
  • You have a conflict of interest (see Section 7)
  • You cannot meet the deadline
  • You feel you cannot give a fair, balanced assessment for any reason

Declining is not a failure. A timely "no" is far more valuable than a late or perfunctory "yes."

5. PAJE's Review Standards

What we expect from every review

PAJE operates double-blind peer review: you do not know the author's identity, and they do not know yours. Your review must be:

  • Specific — point to particular sections, paragraphs, claims, or analyses
  • Actionable — phrase critiques in a way the author can actually address
  • Evidence-based — support claims with reference to the literature or to the manuscript itself
  • Balanced — note strengths as well as weaknesses
  • Respectful — critique the work, never the author
  • Confidential — do not discuss the manuscript with anyone

Reviews that are dismissive, vague, personal, or unsupported will be returned to you for revision by the Section Editor.

What we do not expect

You are not expected to:

  • Copyedit the manuscript or fix grammar (that is the Copy Editor's job after acceptance)
  • Re-run the author's analyses or verify their data line-by-line
  • Suggest the author cite your own work unless it is genuinely indispensable
  • Make the final accept/reject decision — that is the Editor's role; you make a recommendation

6. The PAJE Review Form: What You Will Be Asked

When you accept a review, you will complete a structured form with the following sections.

6.1 Overall assessment

A short paragraph capturing your overall view of the manuscript and its readiness for publication.

6.2 Originality and contribution

  • Does this work add something new to the field?
  • Is the contribution significant or marginal?
  • Has this argument or finding been published before, by these or other authors?

6.3 Theoretical framing

  • Is the conceptual or theoretical foundation appropriate?
  • Are key terms defined clearly?
  • Is the work positioned within the relevant scholarly conversation?

6.4 Methodology

  • Are the methods appropriate to the research question?
  • Are they described in enough detail to be evaluated and replicated?
  • Are sampling, instruments, and procedures sound?
  • For qualitative work: are credibility, transferability, and analytical procedures addressed?
  • For quantitative work: are measurement, sample size, and statistical choices appropriate?

6.5 Data and analysis

  • Are the data adequate for the claims being made?
  • Is the analysis correctly executed and clearly presented?
  • Are tables and figures accurate, necessary, and readable?

6.6 Findings and discussion

  • Do the conclusions follow from the evidence?
  • Are limitations honestly acknowledged?
  • Is the interpretation appropriately bounded — or does it overreach?

6.7 Relevance to Nigerian education

  • Where applicable, does the manuscript engage meaningfully with the Nigerian context?
  • Are practical or policy implications identified clearly?

6.8 Writing and presentation

  • Is the manuscript clearly written and well-organised?
  • Are citations accurate and references complete?
  • Are ethical disclosures, consent statements, and conflict-of-interest declarations present where required?

6.9 Recommendation

You select one of:

  • Accept — minor or no changes needed
  • Minor Revision — small clarifications, citation additions, or copyedits
  • Major Revision — substantive rework needed; would warrant a second round of review
  • Reject and Resubmit — current version not acceptable, but a substantially reconceived version might be welcome
  • Reject — manuscript is not a fit for PAJE

6.10 Confidential comments to the editor

Concerns the author should not see — for example: suspected plagiarism, undisclosed conflicts of interest, methodological concerns you do not feel confident raising publicly, or a recommendation that does not match your written comments and that you want to explain privately.

6.11 Comments to the author

The bulk of your review. Constructive, specific feedback that will reach the author.

A useful structure:

  1. A one-paragraph summary in your own words of what the manuscript argues and what you understand its contribution to be
  2. Major points — substantive concerns about argument, methodology, or evidence (numbered)
  3. Minor points — smaller issues, suggestions, or queries (numbered)
  4. A closing line acknowledging the manuscript's strengths

7. Conflicts of Interest

You must declare or decline if any of the following applies:

  • You have co-authored with anyone you suspect is on the manuscript within the past five years
  • You have a mentor, supervisor, or supervisee relationship with anyone you suspect is on the manuscript
  • You are at the same department or close research group as a suspected author
  • You have a personal relationship (family, close friendship, or significant rivalry) with anyone you suspect is on the manuscript
  • You have a financial interest in the outcome
  • You have already reviewed this manuscript for another journal
  • You feel for any other reason that you cannot give a fair, balanced assessment

Because PAJE uses double-blind review, you may not always know who the author is. If at any point during your review you become aware of the author's identity and recognise a conflict, please contact the Section Editor immediately.

8. Timelines and Expectations

Stage Expected time
Respond to review invitation (accept or decline) 5 working days
Submit review after accepting 4 weeks (28 days)
Respond to revision review (second round) 2 weeks (14 days)

If unforeseen circumstances arise:

  • Contact the Section Editor as soon as you know you will be late
  • We will gladly grant a reasonable extension when asked in advance
  • A no-response with no communication after the deadline triggers a reminder, then reassignment to another reviewer

Reviewers who repeatedly fail to deliver without communication will be removed from the active panel.

9. Confidentiality

The manuscript you receive is unpublished, confidential scholarly work. You must:

  • Not discuss the manuscript, the review, or its findings with anyone outside the editorial team
  • Not share the manuscript with colleagues, students, or research assistants without written permission from the Section Editor
  • Not use any information, data, or ideas from the manuscript in your own research, teaching, or grant applications until the work is published
  • Not cite or refer to the manuscript publicly before publication
  • Delete or securely destroy your copy of the manuscript after the review is complete and the journal has confirmed receipt of your report

If you would like a student or colleague to co-review with you as part of their training, please request permission from the Section Editor before sharing the manuscript. If permission is granted, the co-reviewer will be acknowledged on PAJE's reviewer records and is bound by the same confidentiality standards.

Breach of confidentiality is grounds for permanent removal from the reviewer panel.

10. Ethical Issues You May Encounter

If during your review you suspect any of the following, raise it in your confidential comments to the editor:

  • Plagiarism — text that appears to be copied from another source
  • Duplicate publication — the manuscript appears to overlap substantially with work already published
  • Data fabrication or falsification — figures or findings that seem implausible, inconsistent, or impossible
  • Ethics violations — research involving human subjects (especially children) with no apparent ethics approval or consent
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest — including obvious self-citation patterns suggesting promotional intent
  • Authorship concerns — for example, contributions you suspect have been ghost-written or improperly attributed

The Section Editor and Editor-in-Chief will investigate. You will not be expected to confront the author directly.

11. Tone and Constructive Criticism

The reviewer voice should be that of an experienced colleague offering substantive engagement — not a gatekeeper, not a judge, not a competitor.

Helpful: "The discussion would be strengthened by engaging with Adeyemi & Bature (2021), who challenge the assumption that teacher motivation in rural settings can be modelled with the same framework used in urban schools."

Less helpful: "The discussion is weak."

Helpful: "The sample size of 47 is small for the multivariate analysis attempted in Section 4. Consider either reducing the number of variables in the model or framing the analysis as exploratory."

Less helpful: "The statistics are inappropriate."

Not acceptable: "This author clearly does not understand the field."

If you would not say it to a colleague's face in a department seminar, please do not write it in a review.

12. Reviewing as Professional Development

We recognise that reviewing is uncompensated academic labour, and we work to make it worth your time in other ways.

What PAJE offers reviewers

  • Formal recognition. Annual list of reviewers published in the journal; reviewer certificates available on request
  • Publons / ORCID credit. PAJE reports completed reviews to Publons and ORCID (with your permission), creating a verifiable record of your peer review activity for your CV and promotion files
  • Editorial pathway. Active, high-quality reviewers are first in line for invitations to join the editorial board as Section Editors or Associate Editors
  • Reviewer development resources. Workshops, webinars, and written guides on the craft of reviewing — particularly aimed at early-career scholars
  • Reading credit. Reviewing keeps you connected to current scholarship in your area before it is published. This is a genuine intellectual benefit, particularly for early-career researchers building a sense of where the field is heading

Early-career reviewers

PAJE actively welcomes early-career scholars (PhD candidates in their final year, postdocs, lecturers in their first five years) to the reviewer panel. Your fresh engagement with the literature and methodology training is genuinely valuable. We will pair you with a Section Editor who will guide your first one or two reviews and provide feedback on the review itself.

If you would like a mentored review, please tell the Section Editor when you accept your first invitation.

13. After You Submit Your Review

  1. The Section Editor reads your review alongside the other reviewers' reports
  2. The Section Editor synthesises the reviews into a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief
  3. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision and notifies the author
  4. You will receive a copy of the decision letter and the other reviewers' reports (anonymised), so you can see how your assessment compared
  5. If a revision is requested, the Section Editor will decide whether to invite you back for a second round

Your review remains confidential. It is not published, and your identity is not revealed to the author, but it becomes part of the manuscript's permanent editorial record.

14. Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How long should a PAJE review be? There is no fixed length. A substantive review for an empirical research article typically runs 600–1,200 words in the comments to the author. A book review or short communication may warrant less. What matters is substantive engagement, not word count.

Q: Can I recommend the manuscript be sent to a different journal? You can mention this in confidential comments to the editor, but the final decision belongs to the EIC. Do not suggest alternative outlets directly to the author.

Q: What if I disagree with the editor's final decision? You are welcome to raise concerns with the Section Editor or Editor-in-Chief. Editors weigh multiple reviewer opinions and consider factors beyond a single review; your role is to inform the decision, not determine it.

Q: What if the author requests to know my identity? PAJE will not reveal your identity. If an author contacts you directly (which would itself be a breach of process), please forward the communication to the Section Editor without responding.

Q: Can I use AI tools to help with my review? No. Uploading an unpublished manuscript to any AI system — including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any other large language model — constitutes a serious breach of confidentiality, because the manuscript text enters the AI provider's systems and is no longer under PAJE's control. You may use AI tools for general background reading on the topic, but you may not paste manuscript text, abstracts, or specific claims into an AI tool, and you may not use AI to draft your review report. The intellectual judgement in your review must be yours.

Q: What if I realise mid-review that I am the wrong reviewer for this manuscript? Contact the Section Editor immediately. Better to step down than to file a poor review. We will not hold it against you.

Q: How often will I be invited to review? PAJE aims not to over-burden any individual reviewer. Most active reviewers receive two to four invitations per year. If you receive more than you can accept, please decline freely — your acceptances are more valuable than your forced "yeses."

Q: Will I be paid for reviewing? No. Peer review at PAJE, as at almost all academic journals worldwide, is uncompensated scholarly service. We acknowledge that this asks something of you and try to make it worth your time through the recognition, credit, and development pathways described in Section 12.

15. Contacting Us

  • General reviewer questions: journals@fuep.edu.ng
  • About a specific manuscript: Reply directly to the Section Editor who invited you (their email is in your invitation)
  • Confidential concerns (misconduct, conflicts): Editor-in-Chief, via the email above

We aim to respond to reviewer queries within two working days.

16. Your First Review

If this is your first review for PAJE, we recommend you:

  1. Read this guide in full — once
  2. Read the Focus and Scope statement on the journal website
  3. Read one recent PAJE article to get a feel for what we publish and how it is structured
  4. When you accept your first invitation, tell the Section Editor it is your first review for us — they will give you slightly extra guidance and flag this as a mentored review if you would like

Welcome to the PAJE reviewer community. We are grateful for your time, expertise, and commitment to advancing educational scholarship in Nigeria.