The Journal promotes an active review and mentorship process whereby submissions are guided to a publishable standard (we try to avoid ‘Revise and Resubmit’ or ‘Reject’ as they terminate the learning process). Reviewers are invited to be part of this unique mentorship, since their experience, guidance, time, and effort are pivotal in developing an Author’s understanding and expectation of the publication process.
Goal for Reviewer:
- Provide feedback and edits to submission in order to ready it for publication in the Journal, Remember that the ethos of this Journal is to teach new researchers about the journal submission process, rather than conforming to the traditional submission process wherein a submission may be rejected without revisions.
- Caveat: it is important to note that the Journal relies on the Reviewer to evaluate the submission to ensure that the work done by the Author is correct and appropriate. If the work does not meet this threshold, then we welcome constructive comments from the Reviewer.
General Review Process
- The Reviewer and the Author are invited to work together to develop the submission to a publishable standard following the Reviewer’s initial evaluation through improvements to form, narrative, and content.
- Feedback is provided to the Editorial Manager assigned to the submission, as answers to our ‘Reviewer Questionnaire’ and attached in an e-mail as an annotated PDF or similarly formatted file. The annotated document then passed on to the author to further develop their submission.
- Once the submission has reached a high enough standard, the article is then submitted for a final proof edit by the Editorial Manager for that submission prior to publication.
- The Journal will format the submission to its own template. Thus the Reviewer is invited to note that formatting or citation styles are at the Author’s discretion. This is particularly important if the submission you are asked to review is outside of your immediate discipline.