Peer Review Process
The Catalyst peer review process will be mediated by GivePulse, providing a streamlined review experience for editorial board members and timely feedback to all potential authors.
Two editorial board members will review each submission using a double blind process to ensure professional and academic rigor. Each reviewer will respond to the submission through a rubric that focuses on the following criteria (Scale of 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
Should the two reviewers’ scores vary widely, a third reviewer will be tasked with reviewing the submission to determine the final outcome.
Any submission may be: Accepted with no revisions; Accepted with minor revisions; Accepted with major revisions; Rejected. Any submission that is not accepted will be returned to the author without feedback. Any submission that is accepted will receive feedback from reviewers, including the rubric scores of each reviewer and additional comments and revision suggestions under each rubric criteria category.
Accepted authors will be notified of their submission status (accepted with no revisions; accepted with minor revisions; accepted with major revisions) by February 28 of the publication year. Authors will have until April 15 to complete any revisions and submit a final draft of their submission. All submissions must be finalized by April 30 to be published in that year’s journal. The anticipated publication date will be June/July, and all authors will be notified when the journal goes live on the publication website.