|
| |
Guidelines for Reviewers
Your review may follow any format that you wish as long as you clearly convey to both the editors and author the reasons behind your judgment. We ask that, no matter how severe your judgment, you phrase your critique in a manner that the author will find constructive. Many contributors to scholarly journals are early-career researchers who become discouraged more by the tone of reviews than by the content. We strongly feel that all reviews should be written with consideration for the author's potential as a developing researcher and thus should be written supportively as well as critically.
In reviewing empirical studies, please consider the following questions:
- Is the problem under study significant?
- Does the author clearly explain how the study relates to or extends current research and theory?
- Does the author employ a methodology consistent with the theoretical orientation that informs the investigation?
- Are the data analyzed with appropriate tools?
- Are the conclusions insightful and clearly grounded in the data?
- Is the theory that grounds the article extended or reconceived as a consequence of the data analysis?
- Is the writing clear, fluent, and engaging?
In reviewing literature reviews, please consider the following questions:
- Does the review address a significant educational issue likely to be of interest to the readers of RTE?
- Does the author clearly explain how the review is related to/situated in current research and theory?
- Are the selection and evaluation criteria for the reviewed research succinctly stated and appropriate?
- Does the author provide sufficient detail to allow readers to assess the orientation and relative value of the studies cited? For example: Is the review issues-oriented?That is, is the relevance of the discussion to practice, theory, policy, and/or research clear throughout? Are connections among reviewed research studies insightful?
- Does the review conclude with a compelling statement of the implications for practice, theory, policy, and/or further research? Does the review advance the field by reconceiving theory, and for suggesting critical areas for further study?
- Is the writing clear, fluent, and engaging?
Along with your review, please make one of the following recommendations:
-
Accept with no revisions
-
Accept with specified revisions
-
Revise and resubmit with recommended revisions
-
Do not publish, with recommended revisions and possible journals for resubmission
Related Information:
Submission Guidelines - RTE
Characteristics of Publishable Manuscripts
How Reviewers Are Chosen
Annotated Bibliography
|
