When considering the suitability of a submission for acceptance and preparing a review for JLDHE, our reviewers are asked to bear in mind the following questions:

Contribution to the field

  • Is this paper relevant to the journal and up to date?
  • What does it contribute to current debates in the field of Learning Development?
  • Is it original and interesting?


  • Does the paper have a clear and succinct title that adequately represents its point?
  • Does the abstract summarise the paper’s perspective, purpose and key findings?
  • Does the paper tell a coherent story? Does the argument flow or are there any significant gaps?
  • Has it got an engaging opening paragraph?
  • Has it got a clear concluding paragraph that clarifies the article’s key message and its contribution to the field?
  • Is it the right length, does it use subheadings effectively, and does it include 3-4 keywords?

Methods and methodology

  • Are methods used appropriate to the work reported?
  • Is the methodology clearly identified, explained and discussed?
  • Are the results discussed in a logical way? Are potential weaknesses and/or alternative interpretations acknowledged?

References / Sources

  • Are all the references and sources appropriate and do they take account of current work in the field?

Style and language issues

  • Is the article written in a way that is succinct, clear and accessible to a wide audience?
  • Is it written in plain English? (avoiding unnecessary jargon, explaining technical terms)
  • Is it technically accurate? Are complex ideas clearly expressed?
  • Does it follow JLDHE Style Guide? Is correct referencing used in the text and bibliography? (please refrain from correcting it; just indicate)

Any other comments to support the author

  • What content / thematic issues need addressing to bring this paper to publishable standard?
  • What language / formatting issues need addressing to bring this paper to publishable standard?

Acknowledgement of reviewers

It is our policy to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers by naming them in the editorial for the relevant issue, though without matching them to specific articles. If for any reason you prefer not to be publicly recognised for your contribution in this way, please ensure your editor is aware of this.