Resources

Each submitted chapter will be reviewed using the following criteria:

• Relevance to Encyclopedia Theme

• Originality and Contribution to the Field

• Academic Quality and Clarity

• Methodological Rigor (if applicable)

• Proper Use of Citations and Referencing

• Structure, Coherence, and Flow

• Adherence to Formatting and Word Count Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to use a standardized checklist covering all these aspects. Authors are encouraged to consult the checklist before submission.

The Encyclopedia of Higher Education upholds the highest standards of academic integrity, transparency, and fairness throughout its editorial and review processes. To ensure the credibility and scholarly value of the work published under its imprint, all editors and reviewers are expected to strictly adhere to the following ethical principles:

1. Confidentiality and Anonymity
All manuscripts under review are considered confidential and must not be shared, discussed, or disclosed to unauthorized persons.
Editors and reviewers must refrain from discussing the content of the submission outside of the editorial process, including after the review is complete.
Double-blind review will be enforced—reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors, and editors must not reveal the identities of reviewers to authors.

2. Objectivity and Impartiality
Reviewers and editors must evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit—regardless of authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, or personal beliefs.
Criticism should be objective, evidence-based, and constructive. Personal or defamatory remarks are strictly prohibited.
Disagreements with a manuscript’s perspective or conclusion should not influence the reviewer’s assessment unless supported by academic justification.

3. Integrity of the Review Process
Reviewers must disclose if they feel unqualified to review a manuscript or if they lack the time to do so properly.
Reviews must be completed within the specified timeframe. If a delay is anticipated, the editorial team should be informed immediately.
Reviewers must avoid suggesting citation of their own work solely to increase their citation count, unless academically justified.

4. Conflict of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity. This includes:
Financial conflicts
Academic rivalry
Personal relationships with the author(s)
Institutional connections

If a conflict is identified, the individual must recuse themselves from the review or editorial process for that submission.

5. Ethical Oversight and Misconduct
Editors and reviewers must report suspected ethical breaches, including:
Plagiarism
Data fabrication or falsification
Duplicate or redundant publication
Undisclosed conflicts of interest
The editorial board will follow a structured procedure for investigating all cases of suspected misconduct in accordance with COPE’s flowcharts.

6. Transparency in Decision-Making
Editors are expected to base publication decisions on the manuscript’s quality, its relevance to the encyclopedia’s scope, and the validity of the reviewers’ comments.
Decisions must not be influenced by pressure from authors, institutions, or external entities.
Final editorial decisions must be communicated clearly, with a rationale provided if a manuscript is rejected or returned for revision.

7. Academic Contribution and Development
Reviewers and editors should view their role not merely as gatekeepers, but as contributors to the development of scholarly work.
When possible, feedback should include recommendations to enhance the structure, methodology, clarity, or argumentation of the manuscript—even for submissions ultimately not accepted.
Editors may offer mentoring to early-career scholars who show promise but need development support in academic writing or research framing.

8. Accountability and Transparency in Roles
Editors should avoid taking on too many responsibilities that might compromise the quality or timeliness of their decisions.
Any changes in editorial policy, criteria, or review processes must be clearly communicated and consistently applied to all submissions.
Members of the editorial board should regularly participate in discussions about improving review practices and maintaining ethical integrity.

9. Respect for Diversity and Inclusion
Editors and reviewers must foster an inclusive academic environment by avoiding discriminatory language or assumptions in feedback.
Submissions from authors in underrepresented regions or institutions should be evaluated with the same academic standards, and not disadvantaged by language barriers or format unfamiliarity.
When appropriate, editorial guidance may be offered to support such contributors in improving their submissions.

10. Archiving Reviews and Records
All editorial decisions and reviews will be archived securely in the editorial management system.
Editors must maintain clear documentation of the decision-making process for accountability and future reference.

We welcome qualified scholars and researchers who wish to serve as reviewers or editors. To join:

Submit your CV and a brief expression of interest to:
📧 kayyali@heranking.com

Minimum Requirements:
PhD or equivalent in a relevant field
Prior publication or review experience

Benefits:
Certificate of contribution
Priority access to editorial projects
Featured profile on the website

Members of the editorial board are integral to the success of the encyclopedia. Their responsibilities include:
Advising on thematic direction and scope
Promoting calls for chapters within their networks
Reviewing proposals and full manuscripts
Supporting quality control and ethical oversight
Participating in editorial meetings as needed

Board members are selected based on academic merit, editorial experience, and commitment to the encyclopedia’s mission.

🔖 Recommended Citation Tools

These tools help authors and reviewers manage references and ensure accurate citation formats:

• Zotero

• Mendeley

• EndNote

• CitationMachine.net

Each of these tools supports APA 7th Edition, which is the required referencing style for all submissions.

To help contributors improve clarity, style, and academic tone, we recommend the following:

• Grammarly – for grammar and style correction

• Hemingway Editor – for readability and sentence simplicity

• Academic Phrasebank (Manchester) – for discipline-specific phrasing in scholarly writing

These tools can be particularly useful during both the draft and final editing stages.