The peer review process in science education journals

Dale Baker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this paper, I explore the peer review process in electronic and print science education journals. The topics I address include how to submit manuscripts, criteria for reviews, reviewer qualifications, blind reviews, the qualifications and role of editors and associate editors, time lines, the most common reasons why manuscripts are rejected, writing to the journal audience and, how to interpret letters from editors. I include recommendations for responding to reviewers' comments when revising manuscripts and how to show editors that appropriate changes have been made to a manuscript. I conclude with a discussion of how the review process is a self-regulating mechanism that shapes the field.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)171-180
Number of pages10
JournalResearch in Science Education
Volume32
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2002

Fingerprint

peer review
editor
science
qualification
education
electronics

Keywords

  • Blind reviews
  • Editor role
  • Manuscript submission
  • Peer review
  • Review criteria
  • Reviewer qualifications

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

The peer review process in science education journals. / Baker, Dale.

In: Research in Science Education, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2002, p. 171-180.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Baker, Dale. / The peer review process in science education journals. In: Research in Science Education. 2002 ; Vol. 32, No. 2. pp. 171-180.
@article{fe002f3ca5de4b0cbd9c911bd07d754b,
title = "The peer review process in science education journals",
abstract = "In this paper, I explore the peer review process in electronic and print science education journals. The topics I address include how to submit manuscripts, criteria for reviews, reviewer qualifications, blind reviews, the qualifications and role of editors and associate editors, time lines, the most common reasons why manuscripts are rejected, writing to the journal audience and, how to interpret letters from editors. I include recommendations for responding to reviewers' comments when revising manuscripts and how to show editors that appropriate changes have been made to a manuscript. I conclude with a discussion of how the review process is a self-regulating mechanism that shapes the field.",
keywords = "Blind reviews, Editor role, Manuscript submission, Peer review, Review criteria, Reviewer qualifications",
author = "Dale Baker",
year = "2002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "171--180",
journal = "Research in Science Education",
issn = "0157-244X",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The peer review process in science education journals

AU - Baker, Dale

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - In this paper, I explore the peer review process in electronic and print science education journals. The topics I address include how to submit manuscripts, criteria for reviews, reviewer qualifications, blind reviews, the qualifications and role of editors and associate editors, time lines, the most common reasons why manuscripts are rejected, writing to the journal audience and, how to interpret letters from editors. I include recommendations for responding to reviewers' comments when revising manuscripts and how to show editors that appropriate changes have been made to a manuscript. I conclude with a discussion of how the review process is a self-regulating mechanism that shapes the field.

AB - In this paper, I explore the peer review process in electronic and print science education journals. The topics I address include how to submit manuscripts, criteria for reviews, reviewer qualifications, blind reviews, the qualifications and role of editors and associate editors, time lines, the most common reasons why manuscripts are rejected, writing to the journal audience and, how to interpret letters from editors. I include recommendations for responding to reviewers' comments when revising manuscripts and how to show editors that appropriate changes have been made to a manuscript. I conclude with a discussion of how the review process is a self-regulating mechanism that shapes the field.

KW - Blind reviews

KW - Editor role

KW - Manuscript submission

KW - Peer review

KW - Review criteria

KW - Reviewer qualifications

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=52649098423&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=52649098423&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 171

EP - 180

JO - Research in Science Education

JF - Research in Science Education

SN - 0157-244X

IS - 2

ER -