Guidelines for Reviewers
Each submission will be reviewed by two editorial board members. Before undertaking this review, the editorial board member should consider the following:
- Will reviewing the submission present a conflict of interest or undermine the double blind peer review process? (If you have previously supported the project, formally or informally, or if you believe you can identify the author of the submission, please do not agree to review it. Inform the managing editor so they may reassign the submission to another board member.)
- Do you have the appropriate expertise to review the submission? (As all board members are considered experts in the SLCE field, a broad knowledge is expected and a deep knowledge of specific aspects of the submission or its associated references will not be necessary to complete a successful review. However, if you are uncomfortable reviewing the submission for any reason, inform the managing editor so they may reassign the submission to another board member.)
- Do you have the time and professional capacity to review the submission and complete the review process, including any potential feedback for revision, by February 28? (Please remember that failure to complete the review process by February 28 could be detrimental to the author(s) of the submission and to the timely publication of the entire journal.)
Rubric Scoring
Each submission will be reviewed by two editorial board members assigned by the managing editor through GivePulse using a rubric with the following categories on a rating scale from 1 to 5:
- Clearly articulated goals connected to the established theme of that year’s journal
- Detailed explanation of community-engaged methodology
- Coherent development of ideas
- Unique and relevant evaluation of results
- Resonance of findings for the SLCE field
Based on the final score of the submission (an average of the scores of both reviewers in each rubric category), the work will be:
- Accepted with no revisions (score of 25)
- Accepted with minor revisions (score of 20-24)
- Accepted with major revisions (score of 15-19)
- Rejected (score of less than 15)
If the scores of the two reviewers vary widely (by more than 10 points), a third reviewer will be assigned to determine the submission’s final outcome (accepted; rejected). If a submission is rejected, no written feedback will be shared with the author(s).
Once acceptance is established, the reviewers will endeavor to provide detailed written feedback for revision under each category. This feedback will be returned to the author(s) by February 28 so the author(s) may revise accordingly and resubmit the submission for final publication by April 30.
Questions to Consider
- Is the submission accessible to a broad audience? Are there any instances of discipline-specific jargon that need to be explained or defined in order to make the submission more accessible?
- Is the submission applicable to the broader SLCE field, or are the findings unique to a particular sociocultural context? Is that context sufficiently defined?
- Are there grammatical errors that hinder your ability to comprehend the submission? Try to overlook minor errors. Grammatical errors are grounds for rejection only if they impede overall comprehension of the work.
- Is the submission well organized and imminently readable for all potential audiences?
- Does the submission present new knowledge that will benefit the SLCE field?
- Does the submission invite a diversity of voices into the conversation it creates (ie. community partners, students, faculty, staff, administrators)?
- Does the submission adequately address the issue’s established theme? Are there opportunities to expand on the submission’s thematic connections?
- If applicable, are the methods used by the author(s) following best practices in the field?
- Do the conclusions drawn by the author(s) follow logically from the evidence and ideas presented in the submission?
- What do you think is the biggest takeaway for potential readers of this submission, and what impact, if any, will it have on the community?
- Are you left with any unanswered questions after reading the submission? Is there anything you think the submission should have covered but didn’t?
Guidelines for Feedback
- Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses
- Focus on specific recommendations for revision, not broad impressions
- If you raise a concern, offer a potential path toward a solution
- Remember that the intention of all feedback is to move the submission toward eventual publication; if the revision suggestions you are making would require more than six weeks of effort and a substantive reimagining of the work’s focus, evidence, and/or methodology, consider revising your rubric score to move the submission into the rejection category rather than the accepted category
- Sustain a positive and supportive tone throughout
For more information regarding best practices for peer review, click here.