Evaluation Criteria

Dear reviewers,

We sincerely thank you for your collaboration with the editorial board of Gumilyov Journal of Pedagogy and your valuable contribution to maintaining the academic quality of the published materials.

The proposed evaluation criteria have been developed to make the peer review process as objective, transparent, and consistent as possible. We recommend using them as a guiding framework when analyzing submitted manuscripts.

These criteria will help you to:

  • systematically assess the scientific significance, novelty, and methodological rigor of the article;
  • formulate well-founded and constructive comments for the authors;
  • provide a clear and reasoned recommendation to the editorial board (accept, revise, reject).

We are confident that the use of this system will make your expert work more convenient, and the editorial decisions more justified and transparent for all participants in the publication process.

Article Evaluation Criteria

  1. Does the content of the article correspond to the journal’s scope?

☐ Yes, fully corresponds

☐ Partially

☐ No, does not correspond (the article should not be considered for publication due to non-compliance with the journal’s thematic focus)

  1. Does the article title accurately reflect its content?

☐ Yes

☐ Partially

☐ No

  1. Bibliography provided (Requirements for the reference list):
  • At least 30% of the sources must be published in journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science;
  • At least 50% of the sources must have been published within the last 10 years, with at least half of these published within the last 3 years.

Evaluation:
☐ Well selected

☐ Missing

☐ Needs improvement

  1. Justification of the necessity and relevance of the study:
  2. Are existing gaps in the scientific knowledge, which the article addresses, clearly identified?
  3. Are references to recent sources confirming the relevance provided?
  4. Is there a clear formulation of the problem the article aims to solve?
  5. Detailed justification of the novelty of the article’s results in the context of existing knowledge:
  6. What is the novelty of the results obtained?
  7. Does the article compare its findings with existing research, theories, and approaches?
  8. Does the author propose new interpretations, methods, models, concepts, or original empirical research?
  9. Formulation and description of the solution presented in the article:
  10. How clearly is the solution to the stated problem formulated?
  11. Is a well-founded and reproducible approach to the solution presented?
  12. Are scientific methods appropriate to the research goal applied?
  13. Comments (scientific, technical, grammatical):
  14. Language and style — scientific, precise, and correct;
  15. Presence of gross grammatical and stylistic errors;
  16. Correct use of scientific terminology;
  17. Technical aspects: tables, figures, reference list formatting, presence of abstract and keywords.
  18. Conclusion:
    ☐ The article is recommended for publication

☐ The article can be considered for publication after revisions according to reviewer’s comments
☐ The article is not recommended for publication