Peer review

2009 was the year when I began to be asked to carry out peer reviews – starting with an article related to Second Life, which I reviewed for Educational Research journal.

Five main options:

Accept (select only for submissions that are publishable without any further work)

Accept with revision – i.e. no further review required (select for submissions that require minor, specific revisions)

Invite author(s) to resubmit for further review (select for submissions that are relevant to this journal but would require substantial revision to be acceptable)

Reject – does not meet quality standard (select for submissions that are below the high quality of work published in Educational Research)

Reject – unsuitable for this journal (select for submissions that may be of high quality but are not appropriate for this journal – eg highly technical specialist articles)

Advertisements
  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: