Guidelines for Reviewers

Recommendations for RBIE Reviewers

 

Dear Reviewer,

This is a short guide to assist you in the process of evaluating manuscripts for the RBIE. If you still have questions after reading this guide, please contact the RBIE Editorial Team:

Editors-in-chief
Dra. Anarosa Alves Franco Brandão, USP, Brazil
Dr. Rafael Dias Araújo, UFU, Brazil

Associate Editors
Dra. Ana Liz Souto Oliveira, UFPB, Brazil
Dr. Clodis Boscarioli, UNIOESTE, Brazil
Dr. Dennys Leite Maia, UFRN, Brazil
Dra. Diana Francisca Adamatti, FURG, Brazil
Dr. Edson Pinheiro Pimentel, UFABC, Brazil
Dra. Graziela Ferreira Guarda, UFF, Brazil
Dr. J. Roberto Sánchez-Reina, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain
Dr. Newarney Torrezão da Costa, IFGoiano, Brazil
Dr. Ranilson Oscar Araújo Paiva, UFAL, Brazil
Dra. Valguima Victoria Viana Aguiar Odakura, UFGD, Brazil

RBIE is a young and growing journal. This set of guidelines is intended to support the reviewers. We believe that these recommendations can be useful for the process of continuous growth of the RBIE and strengthening the community. We present in this document a set of recommendations that assist in the establishment of quality standards to support authors in the process of revising and improving their manuscripts.

First, before accepting to review a manuscript, keep in mind three main points: (1) conflicts of interest; (2) deadline for submitting the review; and (3) quality of the review. Regarding conflicts of interest, check that your information is up to date in the RBIE system, indicating your institution, topics of interest, etc. If you still detect that there is a potential for conflict, we suggest that you decline to review the work and let us know. As for the deadline, we ask that you commit to carrying out the evaluation within the specified period, and if you cannot, it is best to talk to the designated associate editor and not accept the invitation for reviewing, so that we can quickly find another reviewer. In this case, feel free to indicate new reviewers, although the RBIE is recent, we are multidisciplinary, and we believe that there are many researchers from other areas who could contribute with us.

Please note that some submissions are written by graduate students and new researchers in Computers in Education. If you feel that a manuscript is not yet ready to be accepted, we ask that you provide constructive reviews to help authors progress in their research.

More than reviewing and selecting the best research articles, we strive to give authors feedback that can offer new insights and help them improve their research. Critical and constructive feedback benefits everyone and we count on you to achieve this important goal!

Here are some questions to assist in your review process:

  • What is the research problem and what is its objective? What is the purpose of the research stated in the manuscript? What problem are the authors trying to solve (or advance our ability to solve)?
  • Why was this research carried out? Is the objective relevant to the national or international community of Computers in Education? Who worked to solve the same or similar problems? Does the text explain why the problem is still not satisfactorily resolved? Is the state-of-the-art clear? Are there any important references not shown (and if so, which ones)?
  • How was the research carried out? Is the research methodology clearly described? Does the text adequately address research objectives and questions? Was it well conducted? Where did that come from? What are the results? Are they clearly described? Are these results really achieved from the research carried out?
  • Is the research well-grounded and do the results hold up? What are the authors' claims? Does the work present sufficient evidence to justify each claim? Are there any important omissions? What's new? Are the results original? How do they compare or relate to existing works?
  • Are the impacts, contributions and limitations of the work clear? Is the impact of the work clearly indicated? Are the contributions new, significant and relevant considering the national or international community of Computers in Education? Do the conclusions reflect the work done? Does the work present its limitations or threats to validity?

Please think about the following statements when deciding on your assessment for each review.

As for the current rules of the RBIE

Before the manuscript was sent to you, it underwent an initial review by the editor-in-chief and an associate editor, in which we analyzed some initial points of anonymity, shape, pattern and size, in addition to adherence to RBIE scope. However, we ask that you observe whether these points were really met. More information at: https://sol.sbc.org.br/journals/index.php/rbie/about/submissions

Relevance

  • The relevance of the problem is clearly expressed.
  • The relevance of the problem is well justified in the context of the existing work (that is, the manuscript provides adequate motivation to address the problem).
  • The problem is relevant to the national or international community.

Originality and importance of the contribution

  • The results are well placed in relation (or compared) to the relevant related works.
  • The originality of the results is clearly demonstrated.
  • The contribution is relevant to the national or international community or to society in general.

Fundamentals

  • The work has an adequate theoretical foundation.
  • The problem is well characterized.
  • The proposed solution/approach/discussion is very clear and justified.
  • The proposed solution is in line with the rationale of the work.

Methodology

  • The methodology is clearly described.
  • The methodology is adequate to solve the stated problem.
  • The results are clearly described.
  • Results are consistent with the methodology.

Presentation Quality

  • The title of the manuscript reflects its text.
  • The abstract indicates the main points of the work. It is suggested that the abstract contain a context of the work (problem to be addressed), objectives, methodology and results achieved.
  • The structure of the manuscript is logical and supports its main point (that is, it is clear how each section contributes to the main point of the work).
  • The sections are expressed clearly and concisely.
  • Non-textual elements such as figures and tables are legible and properly described in the text.
  • References are complete and in accordance with the publication format.
  • The document does not contain grammatical errors or typos.
  • There are no layout issues.

Final evaluation tips

  • If the manuscript is not accepted, always justify why the manuscript did not meet expectations.
  • Be consistent, in the sense of not saying that a manuscript is weak and recommending acceptance or saying that it is excellent and recommending its rejection.
  • Double check your review since it is inconsistent to have a high level of exigence with the manuscript and the review is poorly written/done.
  • Further questions please contact the editors.

Important references

  1. Maillard, P. J; Pimentel, M.; Siqueira, S.; Bittencourt, I. (Org). Metodologia de Pesquisa em Informática na Educação (Série de Livros da CEIE/SBC). Disponível em: http://metodologia.ceie-br.org/#livros (Atualmente há três livros nesta série: Concepção da Pesquisa (Vol. 1); Pesquisa Quantitativa (VOl. 2); Pesquisa Qualitativa (Vol. 3).
  2. CEIE-SBC. Informática na Educação. Série de livros-texto da CEIE-SBC. Disponível em: http://ieducacao.ceie-br.org/ 
  3. Bittencourt, I; Isotani, S. Informática na Educação baseada em Evidências: Um Manifesto. RBIE, v 26, n3, 2018. Disponível em: http://www.br-ie.org/pub/index.php/rbie/article/view/7826/6022
  4. Smith, Alan Jay. The task of the referee. IEEE Computer, v. 23, n. 4, p. 65-71, 1990. Disponível em: http://www.jmlr.org/reviewing-papers/smith-advice.pdf 
  5. Benos, Dale J., Kevin L. Kirk, and John E. Hall. "How to review a paper." Advances in physiology education 27.2 (2003):47-52. Disponível em: https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00057.2002