Guidelines for Reviewers
Table of Contents
|
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.
|
Writing The Review
A reviewer examines a manuscript for two main purposes:
- To provide the author with clear feedback
- To inform the editor of the rationale for your recommendation.
|
General Guidelines for Providing Feedback
- Feedback to the Author
- Provide the author with constructive suggestions addressing how the paper may be strengthened or revised.
- Support general comments with specific evidence and substantiate all statements.
- Be thorough and constructive. Remember, most submissions reflect countless hours of work on the part of the authors.
- Direct all criticism at the paper, not the author.
- Avoid personal comments about the author or biases about the subject matter.
- Feedback to the Editors
- Make a clear recommendation regarding the status of the paper (see below).
- 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
- 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.
- Make a recommendation regarding the status of the submission.
Accept: Publish this manuscript in its present form (i.e., no revisions necessary).
Accept with revisions: This indicates that the paper will be accepted for publication, provided the recommended revisions are made. State whether the revisions are minor or major in scope. Revisions should not significantly change the methodology or content of the paper. Papers in the category normally require: minor revisions, appropriate analysis (or minor easily-correctable flaws), no major flaws in concept, reorganization of content to improve readability, expansion of citations. In this you may include a section entitled "Required Changes;" this outlines changes that are essential for the revised paper to be accepted. You may also choose to include a section entitled "Issues for your Consideration;" this outlines areas that could be improved, but are not essential for publication.
Do not accept, but resubmission is encouraged: The material may be worthy of publication in the journal following substantial revision. The needed revisions are extensive enough to warrant resubmission as a new paper.
Do not accept, resubmission is discouraged: The material is not suitable for publication in the journal. Papers 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 it is more suitable for publication in another journal, please state the name of the journal.
- 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. For specific guidelines regarding analyzing sections of the paper and issues to consider when reviewing, see Guiding Questions for Reviewers below.
- Closing paragraph summarizing your conclusions
|
Guiding Questions for Reviewers
The following are suggested guidelines to use when reviewing an article. Also, they should inform authors of our general expecations.
|
General Considerations
- Importance and interest to the journal’s readers
- What does the paper contribute to the field of education?
- Is it significant to the target community?
- Does it present a new and significant contribution to the literature?
- Is it timely and relevant?
- Originality of the paper
- Is the study innovative? Interesting?
- 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.
- Presentation
- Does the paper present a cohesive argument?
- What is the basic logic of the presentation?
- Are the ideas clearly presented?
- Writing
- 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.
- Length
- What portions of the paper should be expanded? Removed? Condensed? Summarized? Combined?
- Title
- Is the title informative?
- Abstract and Introduction
- Do the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the points made in the paper?
- Literature Review
- Are the cited articles/papers current?
- Is the literature review comprehensive?
- Does the literature review contain a coherent argument supported by literature (as opposed to a list of studies)?
- Methods for studies involving primary data collection
- Does the author provide enough detail of the methodology?
- Are the methods described clearly
enough to facilitate replication (where applicable)?
- Is there a sound research methodology?
- Are the methods appropriate?
- Data presentation
- Could the design be conveyed more easily?
- Are the data clearly presented?
- Can the reported results be verified easily by reference to tables and/or figures?
- Would another form of presentation help?
- Are illustrations instructive?
- Are all tables and figures clearly labeled? Necessary? Well-planned?
- Analysis and Interpretation
- Does the organization of results promote understanding?
- Are the analyses appropriate and logical? Are they described in enough detail?
- Discussion
- Are the discussion and conclusions made by the author supported by the data?
- Does the writer understand the limitations of their work?
- Is there enough breadth and depth in the implications of their study?
|
|
