Current Issues in Education

Reviewer Guidelines

**While we appreciate the use of track changes and Word comment, we prefer that reviewers instead use our approved reviewer guidelines (located below) when preparing their manuscript reviews.

General Guidelines for Providing Feedback (for our peer reviewers):

Feedback to the Author-

1.         Should provide the author with constructive suggestions addressing how the paper may be strengthened or revised.

2.         Should support general comments with specific evidence and substantiate all statements.

3.         Should be thorough and constructive. Remember, most submissions reflect countless hours of work on the part of the authors.

4.         Should direct all criticism at the paper, not the author.

5.         Should avoid personal comments about the author or biases about the subject matter.

Feedback to the Editors-

1.         Should make a clear recommendation regarding the status of the paper (see 4 decisions below).

2.         Should provide a rationale for your decision. Your rationale should outline your main reasons for making the recommendation and be substantiated by specific evidence to support your comments.

Structure of the Review We'd Like from You-

1.  State the purpose of the study and why/if the purpose is important.

Begin with a short statement about the purpose of the study and whether the purpose is one that is important and relevant to the field. This statement allows the editors to check their understanding of the paper against the reviewer's and that of other reviewers. Disagreement among readers may be an indication of lack of clarity, or misunderstanding by one or more readers.

2.  State your manuscript decision, using one of the four choices detailed below-accept submission, revisions required, resubmit for review, or decline submission.

3.  Provide a rationale for your decision/ feedback for the authors

Your rationale and feedback should outline your main reasons for making the recommendation and be substantiated by specific evidence to support your comments.

4.  Provide a closing paragraph summarizing your conclusions.

Four Possible Manuscript Decisions:

Accept Submission: This decision indicates that the manuscript will be accepted for publication in its present form, with no changes.  This means that no revisions whatsoever are required before publication.  This decision is very rare.

Revisions Required: This decision indicates that the manuscript will be accepted for publication after recommended minor revisions are made.  Manuscripts that receive this decision WILL NOT UNDERGO ANOTHER ROUND OF PEER REVIEW. The minor revisions suggested by the peer reviewers will not significantly change the methodology or content of the manuscript. Manuscripts in this category normally require minor revisions or revision of easily correctable flaws. Manuscripts that receive this decision contain NO major flaws in concept, organization, support, or the expansion of research or citations.

Resubmit for Review: This decision indicates that the manuscript, in its current form, is NOT suitable for publication. The material could be worthy of publication in the future following substantial revision. The needed revisions are extensive enough to warrant resubmission as a new manuscript. Manuscripts that receive this decision MUST UNDERGO ANOTHER ROUND OF PEER REVIEW. A resubmitted manuscript must go through peer review again and there is no guarantee that that Round 2 of peer review will offer automatic acceptance.

Decline Submission: This decision indicates that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal. Manuscripts are often rejected for reasons such as: serious flaws in experimental design, incorrect interpretation of data, inadequate data, inappropriateness for journal, lack of originality, treatment of an unimportant or trivial problem, and/or inadequate or inappropriate citations.  If a manuscript is more suitable for publication in another journal, a peer reviewer has the option to make this recommendation as well.  This is a final decision.  Manuscripts that receive this decision WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR PUBLICATION AND WILL THEREFORE NOT UNDERGO ANOTHER ROUND OF PEER REVIEW.

Thank you again for providing your review according to our guidelines.  We appreciate your service.

Guiding Questions for Reviewers

The following are suggested guidelines to use when reviewing an article.

General Considerations

1.     Importance and interest to the journal's readers

o What does the paper contribute to the field of education?

o Is it significant to the target community?

o Does it present a new and significant contribution to the literature?

o Is it timely and relevant? 

2.     Originality of the paper

o Is the study innovative? Interesting? 

3.     What were the author(s) trying to accomplish and were they successful?

Specific Considerations

Current Issues in Education does not require that the considerations be addressed explicitly as in the format below; however, these issues should be incorporated into the review.

1.     Presentation

o Does the paper present a cohesive argument?

o What is the basic logic of the presentation?

o Are the ideas clearly presented? 

2.     Writing

o Is the writing concise and easy to follow?
NOTE: You are not required to correct deficiencies of style, syntax, or grammar, but any help you can give in clarifying meaning will be appreciated.

3.     Length

o What portions of the paper should be expanded? Removed? Condensed? Summarized? Combined? 

4.     Title

o Is the title informative?

5.     Abstract and Introduction

o Do the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the points made in the paper? 

6.     Literature Review

o Are the cited articles/papers current?

o Is the literature review comprehensive?

o Does the literature review contain a coherent argument supported by literature (as opposed to a list of studies)?

7.     Methods for studies involving primary data collection

o Does the author provide enough detail of the methodology?

o Are the methods described clearly enough to facilitate replication (where applicable)?

o Is there a sound research methodology?

o Are the methods appropriate?

8.     Data presentation

o Could the design be conveyed more easily?

o Are the data clearly presented?

o Can the reported results be verified easily by reference to tables and/or figures?

o Would another form of presentation help?

o Are illustrations instructive?

o Are all tables and figures clearly labeled? Necessary? Well-planned? 

9.     Analysis and Interpretation

o Does the organization of results promote understanding?

o Are the analyses appropriate and logical? Are they described in enough detail? 

10.  Discussion

o Are the discussion and conclusions made by the author supported by the data?

o Does the writer understand the limitations of their work?

Is there enough breadth and depth in the implications of their study?

A Little History

At their inception over 300 years ago, journals were intended to provide an outlet for dissemination of scientific information and proof of "ownership" of new ideas and discoveries (Mahoney, 1987). However, a number of factors led to the increasing role of journals as gatekeepers (Bornstein, 1991). First, the sheer number of scientists increased, making it impossible to publish all submissions. Second, publication became the primary criterion by which scientists were evaluated, causing the number of manuscripts submitted per author to increase. Third, publication came to be seen as "legitimization." Each of these factors contributed to the need for journal editors to screen manuscripts carefully.

This led to the current system, which has survived despite frequent criticism (e.g., Bornstein, 1991). The journal editor solicits reviews of the paper's methodological and conceptual soundness, importance, and overall quality from two or more qualified reviewers. The journal editor uses these reviews and his/her own reading of the paper to determine whether to publish the paper. The reviews are designed to both inform the editor and offer suggestions to the author for improving the manuscript. Although this system has been criticized for low inter-reviewer reliability, reviewer bias, and inability to incorporate articles with findings that challenge accepted paradigms, it remains the overwhelming choice of scholarly journals.

Blind Review

Current Issues in Education uses a blind review process. This means that the author is not told who reviewed the paper and the reviewers are not told who authored the paper. This process has distinct advantages for both the reviewer and author. First, the reviewer can feel free to make comments without fear of recrimination, much like a secret ballot. Second, authors can be assured their article will be judged on its merits rather than on the strength of the authors' names. Therefore, young scholars will have a level playing field with more well-known authors, and experienced scholars can be assured that their work will receive careful scrutiny.

There are also potential disadvantages of the blind review process. Reviewers may feel free to make unnecessarily harsh comments, knowing that their identity will not be revealed. Reviewers may also attempt to guess the authors of a paper, which can lead to misguided assumptions about the context of the research. Finally, authors may not understand the viewpoint of the reviewers since they do not know the reviewers' backgrounds. These disadvantages can be overcome, however, with some thoughtfulness on the part of the reviewer.

Reviewing for Online Journals

There are some considerations unique to the process of reviewing for an on-line journal. For example, we must consider how the material works with and/or makes use of the format. We are especially interested in articles that make use of the special capabilities offered by the on-line format (e.g., video or audio).

Policies

Confidentiality: All manuscripts should be considered confidential; information from them should not be shared for any reason. Please do not cite manuscripts you receive or refer to the work before it has been published.

Conflict of Interest: If, after reading the manuscript, you determine that you have a conflict of interest in reviewing the article, please contact the associate editor who asked you to review it. Conflicts of interest might include working with the author or for a funding source for the research.

Time: CIE asks that you review a manuscript within 3 weeks of receiving it. If you are not able to do this, please contact the associate editor immediately.