In addition to meeting the above requirements for submitting manuscript and (later) using revision feedback from reviewers (via editor), authors could benefit from taking an advance view of the following reviewer guidelines:
Question 1: What is best done in the manuscript?
Sample Comment: The content of the article is relevant to readers of this journal. The writing is organized well and interesting to read. Results and discussion sections are done very effectively.
Question 2: What needs to be improved most?
Sample Comment: There is no real introduction/framing in the beginning; the long “background” sections should be condensed and rewritten as a framing/introduction section (the title “introduction” is unnecessary). Results section needs more explanation and fewer numbers.
Question 3: Does the manuscript's content fit the Journal? Do the subject and argument of the draft focus on higher education? Does the writer make the disciplinary and national/cultural/material context clear for interdisciplinary and global audiences? Is the issue timely and the main idea clear and interesting?
Sample Comment: Yes. Readers interested in educational discourse coming out of different disciplines and different cultures/contexts would find this article useful. The method of teaching described in the Chinese context here may not be easy to implement in other places, but the author is aware of this and provides broader insights about realigning testing with teaching for other contexts as well.
Question 4: Does it contribute new knowledge about higher education on the subject? Please note that most readers of the journal are scholars/teachers interested in learning about higher education from other educators across disciplines and across national/cultural borders.
Sample Comment: Not sure if the key idea of effective teaching with limited technology is "new" in itself; in fact, readers in more technologically well-resourced contexts may not find the manuscript very useful. However, it was refreshing to learn about a few specific methods of "leapfrogging" that teachers in Nepal use in the classroom. Reading this manuscript triggered some strategies for my own classroom here in Brazil.
Question 5: Is the thesis and/or purpose of the manuscript clearly stated early on? Does the author focus on the key idea/argument throughout the manuscript? If the statement of objective is hidden, delayed, or overly complex, point it out and give specific suggestions for foregrounding it.
Sample Comment: No. The author states the argument/thesis and purpose in the “abstract” but instead of a good introduction (framing, outline, preview), there are three separate sections that describe and provide literature review on three separate ideas. The author doesn’t frame those ideas within the main argument/issue of the article at large, and he/she also doesn’t provide good connections from section to section. See comment #9 for solution.
Question 6: Is there logical focus and flow of the main idea throughout the draft? Because this journal has mixed audiences, writers must make their manuscripts highly “accessible,” showing clear connection from the main idea/argument to each section. If you cannot easily see the “big picture” of logical organization of ideas when quickly reading the manuscript, please tell the writer how you to address the problem.
Sample Comment: Yes—except the fact that the author provides three sections that read like textbook chapters in lieu of a good introduction. The rest of the manuscript has parts whose roles in the big picture I could easily/quickly follow.
Question 7: Does the work build on a review of relevant literature? Would you suggest having a separate review of literature, or would it be better to disperse citation in certain sections? Do you suggest more referencing to show/connect to current knowledge on the topic? Please pay attention to possibly missing citation.
Sample Comment: Yes. References are relevant and sufficient. In fact, the author overdoes this in the manuscript. See comment #2 above for how to reduce the number of citations.
Question 8: Do the evidence and arguments sufficiently support or explore the key issue? The manuscript as a whole must feel complete and convincing. If you think that the author needs to find more sources, add examples or explanations, or clarify some of the key issues, please advise. If something is overdone, please suggest deletion or condensation.
Sample Comment: Yes. Generally done well.
Question 9: Does the manuscript follow APA citation guidelines? We ask authors to follow the APA guidelines, so please point out errors and issues in that regard. Also, please point out if the abstract isn't roughly 120 words, captions/titles aren't provided for tables/figures, there’s no one-to-one match between in-text citation and references listed, block quotation isn't used used for 40+ words, page and year aren't specified in direct quotations, section titles aren't telling, language and tone doesn't fits an academic journal, and the type of evidence and elaboration doesn't match the discipline and topic.
Sample Comment: There are a number of problems in this regard, as I have indicated by using track change and marginal comments.
Question 10: If you have any additional comments, please add them here.
Sample Comment: I think this manuscript, if improved and published, could be a valuable contribution to this journal. The writer may not be highly experienced and his/her style less than advanced, but the subject and argument are important to share. Teachers especially in developing countries around the world would greatly benefit from learning about these smart pedagogical strategies of making a lot out of little technology.
This is a special section we are adding to the next issue, including short essays by educators/scholars from around the world.
The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.