1. Pass criteria (must-have)

• Education question first: the central question is about learning/teaching computing (informatics) or computing used in education with a clear informatics / computational-thinking educational contribution.
• Computing-education linkage: the paper makes an explicit connection to programming, computational thinking, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, teacher education, equity/ethics, or evidence-based evaluation of a computing-learning tool.
• Scholarly contribution: the manuscript makes an original research or synthesis contribution grounded in relevant literature and supported by a transparent method.

2. What INFEDU means by research

In INFEDU, a manuscript counts as research when it makes a clear, non-trivial knowledge claim about learning/teaching computing or about a clearly scoped computing in education problem, and supports that claim with a transparent and defensible method.

Research in INFEDU is not limited to one method family. Within Research Articles, contributions may be empirical, design-and-evaluation, methodological/measurement, or theoretical/conceptual. Within Reviews, contributions may be systematic, scoping, systematic mapping, or meta-analytic.

Regardless of genre, the manuscript should make a visible chain from problem → aim → novelty/contribution → method → evidence/synthesis → interpretation, and it should include a real interpretive Discussion that states what the paper shows, what it only suggests, and what it cannot conclude.

3. Research Articles

Use Research Article for original contributions that generate new knowledge directly. This includes empirical studies, design & evaluation studies, methodological / measurement studies, and theoretical / conceptual studies.

Research questions and a true Discussion

A publishable Research Article must do more than restate findings. INFEDU often returns manuscripts when the paper reports results but does not include a genuine interpretive Discussion, or when binary “Does X improve Y?” questions are not matched by a design that can justify that level of inference.

At minimum, a publishable Discussion should:

• answer each research question or aim explicitly;
• interpret what the results mean for learning/teaching computing;
• compare findings with prior computing/informatics education research;
• consider alternative explanations, confounds, and boundary conditions;
• derive implications that remain traceable to measured evidence.

Minimum reporting checklist for Research Articles

• Design clarity: state the study design and the intended inference level.
• Unit of analysis and independence: clarify clustering, repeated measures, or nesting where relevant.
• Measures/instruments/materials: provide enough detail for editorial review and reproducibility.
• Quantitative reporting: define the sample, explain missing data handling, and report uncertainty for inferential claims.
• Qualitative reporting: describe sampling, data sources, analysis steps, and trustworthiness procedures.
• Ethics and privacy: report approval/exemption basis, consent/assent where applicable, and data-protection safeguards.
• Required statements: conflicts of interest, funding, data/material availability, and generative-AI disclosure where applicable.

4. Reviews

Use Review for manuscripts that synthesize prior studies in order to produce new insight for computing/informatics education. INFEDU welcomes reviews that advance the field rather than provide a narrative catalogue of prior work.

• Computing-education focus: state a clear informatics / CS / CT education problem and explicit review question(s).
• Protocol transparency: report review type, databases, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening workflow, and synthesis method.
• New insights: provide an evidence map, pattern synthesis, explanatory structure, gaps, or implications beyond descriptive categorization.
• Interpretation and implications: the Discussion should interpret the evidence, compare alternatives, explain limits, and derive appropriately bounded implications for computing education.

5. Reporting, transparency, and ethics

• Originality and prior dissemination: disclose conference versions, preprints, chapters, or other related prior dissemination, and explain what is new.
• Methods transparency: describe the method clearly enough for editorial assessment and peer review.
• Human data: state the ethics basis, consent/assent where applicable, and data provenance.
• Generative AI disclosure: disclose AI-assisted writing, translation, editing, transcription, coding, or analysis where relevant; authors remain responsible for accuracy and integrity.
• Data/materials statement: include a data/material availability statement even if access is restricted or not applicable.

See also: Instructions for authors, Submit your article, and Research Ethics.

6. Often out of scope

• General e-learning or satisfaction surveys with no clear computing/informatics learning focus.
• Generic higher-education analytics not tied to a computing-learning context.
• Tool/app descriptions with usability-only evaluation and no meaningful educational evidence.
• Pure opinion pieces presented as research.
• Narrative reviews without a reproducible search and synthesis protocol.
• Bibliometric/scientometric ranking manuscripts without a direct, explicit computing-education contribution and education-relevant implications.

7. Editorial notes

1. Quantitative empirical studies: sample size should be justified appropriately and uncertainty should be reported for inferential claims. If the study is underpowered or highly context-bound, it should be framed accordingly and claims should remain bounded.
2. Theoretical and methodological work: these remain fully admissible within Research Article when they use a defensible conceptual or methodological approach, provide operational clarity, and avoid overclaiming.
3. Conference proceedings and prior dissemination: INFEDU may consider substantially extended journal versions, but authors should disclose prior dissemination, cite the earlier version, and explain what is genuinely new.
4. Special issues: some expectations may be adapted when a special issue explicitly defines additional or narrower framing requirements.