Presentation

Does the manuscript present a cohesive argument? Are the ideas clearly and logically organized?

Writing

Does the title accurately characterize the manuscript? Is the writing concise, precise, and easy to follow?

Length

Which parts of the manuscript should be expanded, removed, condensed, summarized, or combined to improve clarity and contribution?

Title

Is the title concise and informative, omitting implicit terms and, where possible, stating the main result or conclusion? Are abbreviations avoided in the title?

Abstract

Does the abstract include: (1) aim/purpose of the study; (2) method; (3) key results/findings; and (4) conclusion/implications?

Introduction

Does the introduction clearly describe:

• The background and significance of the study;
• State of the art and relevant prior research to justify the manuscript’s novelty;
• Gap analysis and a clear novelty statement;
• Research questions and/or hypotheses (optional);
• The approach used to address the problem; and
• The aim/objectives of the study.

Method

• Is the method described clearly enough for replication and evaluation?
• Does the section go beyond defining terms by explaining how the research was conducted?
• Are the research context/location, participants/data sources, instruments/materials, procedures, and data analysis techniques clearly stated?
• For interdisciplinary, technology-enhanced, or AI-supported studies (where applicable): are system/model details, datasets/materials, key parameters, evaluation metrics, and validation procedures reported appropriately?

Results and Discussion

• Are results presented as processed data (not raw data), using appropriate tables/figures with clear captions and readable descriptions?
• Do the results address the research questions/objectives stated in the Introduction?
• Are findings compared with relevant prior studies, noting similarities and differences?
• Does the manuscript provide scientifically grounded interpretations for each key finding?
• Are theoretical, practical, and/or policy implications discussed (where relevant)?
• Are limitations and potential threats to validity clearly acknowledged?
• Does the paper identify future research directions or opportunities for extending the work?

Conclusion

Does the conclusion:

• Directly answer the objectives of the research;
• Provide implications and/or recommendations where appropriate (optional);
• Appear as a paragraph (not bullet points or numbering)?

Scope Fit for JESTEAH

Does the manuscript clearly relate to interdisciplinary educational studies connecting science, technology, engineering, arts, and the humanities, for example: STEM education innovations; STEAM integration; educational technology, engineering design, and design thinking; maker culture and technology-enhanced learning; equity, inclusion, and access across multidisciplinary learning contexts; methodological advances (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, design-based, action research); humanities and cultural dimensions (ethics, socio-cultural factors, history/philosophy of science); project-based and experiential learning (maker spaces, innovation labs, capstone projects); and policy, leadership, and institutional change supporting cross-disciplinary integration (e.g., sustainability, digital transformation, globalization)?