American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000
3.
CaputoR. K. (2019). Peer review: A vital gatekeeping function and obligation of professional scholarly practice. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 100(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044389418808155
4.
ChongS. W.LinT. (2024). Feedback practices in journal peer-review: A systematic literature review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2164757
CorrC.ChudzikM.OhJ. R.LoveH. R.SnodgrassM. R. (2023). Mixed methods journal reviewing in early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 43(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214231170587
7.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
8.
FàbreguesS.GuettermanT. C. (2025). Barriers to publishing mixed methods studies in disciplinary journals. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 19(2), 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898251326831
9.
FàbreguesS.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2017). Addressing quality in mixed methods research: A review and recommendations for a future agenda. Quality and Quantity, 51(6), 2847–2863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0449-4
10.
FarberS. (2024). Enhancing peer review efficiency: A mixed-methods analysis of artificial intelligence-assisted reviewer selection across academic disciplines. Learned Publishing, 37(4), Article e1638. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1638
11.
FettersM. D.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2019a). A checklist of mixed methods elements in a submission for advancing the methodology of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819875832
12.
FettersM. D.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2019b). New requirements to include the methodological contribution in articles published in the Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 138–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819834753
13.
FischerC. C. (2011). A value-added role for reviewers in enhancing the quality of published research. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(2), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.42.2.226
14.
GuettermanT. C. (2017). What distinguishes a novice from an expert mixed methods researcher?Quality and Quantity, 51(1), 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0310-9
15.
GuettermanT. C.SakakibaraR. V.Plano ClarkV. L.LuborskyM.MurrayS. M.CastroF. G.CreswellJ. W.DeutschC.GalloJ. J. (2019). Mixed methods grant applications in the health sciences: An analysis of reviewer comments. PLoS One, 14(11), Article e0225308. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225308
16.
HeyvaertM.HannesK.MaesB.OnghenaP. (2013). Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(4), 302–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813479449
17.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.PothC. (2016). Editors’ afterword: Toward evidence-based guidelines for reviewing mixed methods research manuscripts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916628986
18.
Plano ClarkV. L.IvankovaN. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Sage.
Toraman TurkS.Plano ClarkV. L.GuettermanT. C.CurryL. A. (2024). Exploring the potential for cultural humility in the evolving field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 18(3), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898241250085
