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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 171-180 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Research in Science Education |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| State | Published - 2002 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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
AN - SCOPUS:52649098423
VL - 32
SP - 171
EP - 180
JO - Research in Science Education
JF - Research in Science Education
SN - 0157-244X
IS - 2
ER -