In Högre utbildning, Articles are subjected to peer review (see our section policies here).

As a peer reviewer for Högre utbildning, we ask you to give us a general evaluation of the merit of the manuscript you have received and, in particular, comment on the following points:

• The originality of the manuscript (is it an original manuscript?)
• The logical coherence, structure, legibility, readability and length of the manuscript
• The current interest, value and relevance, in general and in relation to the journal’s focus on higher education, e.g. does the manuscript advance new knowledge?
• Whether the issues addressed are discussed and analysed in a proper way, and whether the conclusions are supported by the sources and data presented in the manuscript.
• Whether the use of sources is conscientious and methodologically acceptable, and ethical considerations are made and presented, when relevant. Note: since many of Högre utbildning’s authors are academic teachers, supervisors or leaders, power relations to informants are a particular ethical concern
• Whether the references are satisfactory and in accordance with the journal’s editorial guidelines
• Whether the manuscript otherwise has sufficient quality to be published as a peer-reviewed academic article or reflection

Positive aspects of the manuscript should be emphasized. Any other remarks – including proposals for improvements – should also be mentioned.

Your evaluation, following the points listed above, can be entered into the Review form found at stage 3. In addition to or in lieu of the Review form, you can make comments directly in the manuscript file. Either way, your evaluation should clearly state whether you recommend publication, recommend publication after improvements, or do not recommend publication. If you recommend that the manuscript should be revised and subjected to a second round of peer review (“Resubmit for review”), please indicate in the form for the editor whether you are willing, or not, to review a revised version of the manuscript.

The final step in completing your review via this portal will be to record your recommendation by choosing one of the following choices from the drop-down menu:

1. Accept submission
2. Revision required
3. Resubmit for review (revision is required and revised version should be peer reviewed again)
4. Resubmit elsewhere
5. Decline submission
6. Other

We ask that peers complete their reviews within three weeks. The deadline for submitting your review will have been stated when you first logged in.

IMPORTANT POINTS TO BEAR IN MIND WHILE WORKING IN THE PLATFORM:

The peer review process is reciprocally anonymous. Therefore, if you plan to upload a file in connection with your review, be sure that your identity cannot be inferred and that your name does not appear in the file properties! More information about ensuring a blind review and instructions for anonymizing files can be found here.

There is no interim save-function in this portal! In other words, if you type at length, then step away from your computer before completing the review process, your work will not be saved, and you will have to start anew (we recommend that you write in a separate document and paste text to the form).

Your review becomes final, that is to say ‘locked in’, once you have recorded your recommendation. At that point you will not be able to make any changes to your text or upload any files. Please be sure you are completely satisfied with your work and have uploaded your file(s) before you record your recommendation.

If you experience any difficulties working via the portal or completing submission of your review, do not hesitate to contact the editors – we will be happy to assist you!