Journal of Innovative Pedagogy and Educational Transformation

The ADU Journal of Innovative Pedagogy and Educational Transformation (IPET) aims to provide a dedicated online, open-access platform for the dissemination of high-quality research, theoretical studies, and practical insights in the fields of pedagogical innovation and educational transformation.

Editors-in-Chief

Dr-Daniela
Abu Dhabi University

Dr. Daniela Coelho

Dr. Mohammad Ali Fteiha
Abu Dhabi University

Dr. Mohamed Fteiha

Local Editorial Board

Dr. Ayman
Sharjah Education Academy

Dr. Ayman Massouti

Ghanem Albustami
Abu Dhabi University

Prof. Ghanem Al Bustami

Default grey silhouette avatar used as a placeholder for user profile or missing photo
United Arab Emirates University

Dr. Mohammad Al-Rashaida

dr-mona
United Arab Emirates University

Dr. Mona Aljanahi

dr-patricia
Emirates College of Advanced Education

Dr. Patrícia Fidalgo

Dr. Reem
Emirates College of Advanced Education

Dr. Reem Hashem

female-avatar
Abu Dhabi University

Dr. Sana'a AlReiahy

yara-azouqa
Abu Dhabi University

Dr. Yara Azouqa

International Editorial Board

female-avatar
Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Portugal

Dr. Ana Pires

dr-elia
JAMK University of Applied Sciences, Finland

Dr. Eila Burns

Default grey silhouette avatar used as a placeholder for user profile or missing photo
Sultan Qaboos University, Oman

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Qaryouti

Default grey silhouette avatar used as a placeholder for user profile or missing photo
Emirates College of Advanced Education

Dr. Mohammed Musah

dr-monica
University of Coimbra, Portugal

Dr. Mónica Lourenço

female-avatar
University of British Columbia, Canada

Dr. Nasrin Kowkabi

dr-yecid
Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland

Dr. Yecid Ortega

Duties of Reviewers

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
  • Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
  • Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  • Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  • Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author.

Back to top