Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review process

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editors will first evaluate whether it fits within the publishing profile of the journal and meets basic standards of quality. If the manuscript passes this preliminary editorial review, the next step is a double-blind peer review by two independent peers who hold a relevant doctoral degree or equivalent and are familiar with the relevant topic(s). As a rule, one of the peers will be from the same country as the author or will be familiar with the professional tradition in the relevant country. Exceptionally there may be only one independent peer. In such cases, one of the editors or a member of the editorial board will be peer number two. The editors will make the final decision regarding acceptance/rejection of the manuscript.

NB: Peers do not receive payment for their reviews.

Procedures for peer review

As a peer reviewer for Research and Change, we ask you to give us a general evaluation of the scholarly merit of the manuscript and, in particular, comment on the following points:

  1. The originality of the manuscript (is it an original manuscript?).
  2. The logical coherence, structure, legibility and length of the manuscript.
  3. The current interest, value and relevance, e.g. does the manuscript advance new knowledge?
  4. Whether the issues addressed are discussed and analyzed in a proper way, and whether the conclusions are supported by the sources and data presented in the manuscript.
  5. Whether the use of sources is conscientious and methodologically acceptable.
  6. Whether the references are satisfactory and in accordance with the journal’s editorial guidelines. (The journal’s Author Guidelines can be found here.)
  7. Is the manuscript otherwise of sufficient quality to be published as a peer-reviewed academic article?

In addition, reviewers are asked to assess the quality of the contribution based on the following quality criteria:

Practical relevance: Does the article present research demonstrating explicit theoretical, methodological or empirical reflection, which is relevant to practice and which contributes new knowledge about what the value, relevance or importance of research actually is, should be, or may become in terms of the development or renewal of practice?

Forms of Cooperation: Are actual or potential instances of collaboration between research and practice presented and analysed as part of the research – or as relevant and reflective activities related to it? Are the role of research and its potential importance for actual cooperation with practice sufficiently clear and reflectively argued?

With a view to change: Does the article clearly state the contribution or significance of the research presented to progress, renewal or learning in the professions, or in related social, cultural, organisational or societal fields? Does the article pass on essential approaches or contributions to solving or ameliorating problems or unacceptable conditions found in practice?

Theoretical and methodological perspectives: Does the article contribute to the theoretical, scientific or methodological development or investigation of the interaction between research, education and practice? Can the research presented enrich, or present new angles on, such interaction, above and beyond the scope of the research itself?

Positive aspects of the manuscript should be emphasized. Any other remarks – including proposals for improvements – should also be mentioned.

Your review may be written as a separate evaluation, following the points listed above, and/or as comments made directly in the manuscript file. Either way, your evaluation should clearly state whether you:
1. Recommend publication,
2. Recommend publication after improvements, or 
3. Do not recommend publication.

The peer review process is reciprocally anonymous at Research and Change. Therefore, please be sure that your identity cannot be inferred from your review file(s) before you send us your review. More information about ensuring a blind review and instructions for anonymizing files can be found here.

We ask that peers complete their reviews within three weeks.

Etichal guidelines

The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process.