Editorial mandates and policymaker practices to close the AI × SEL policy gap¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

For editors and reviewers, the review recommends that journal editorial boards mandate a "Policy and Practice" section in submissions, especially for studies claiming to guide educational stakeholders, and that papers claiming policy implications be scrutinized on specificity and feasibility. For policymakers, it recommends actively searching for "policy-oriented systematic reviews" synthesized for local contexts rather than relying on disparate, high-level conference papers, and collaborating with researchers to translate findings into context-sensitive governance ideas.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Editorial boards must mandate the section and review processes should require authors to define policy implications

Constraints¶

• The review found one mandated-section paper that spelled out policy guidance while another provided none, so the section alone does not guarantee substance

Target Learners¶

• journal editors, reviewers, and educational policymakers

Target Learning Goals¶

• strengthening evidence-to-policy translation in AI × SEL research

Related Strategies¶

• Actionable writing practices for researchers to produce policy-ready implications
• AI researchers creating demos, resources, and activities for K-12 learners

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Tran Van Cuong, Liu Yihan, Nguyen Van Tuong. (2026). The Policy Deficit in AI x Social-Emotional Learning Research. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29950