Review Process

Details
Category: Main Menu
Hits: 29122

 

THE REVIEW PROCESS

 

The Journal accepts manuscripts in all areas of agricultural education (broadly defined), including extension education, communications, leadership development, teacher education, and other related areas that support the agricultural sciences. Manuscripts received are acknowledged and sent to three reviewers; one from the Editorial Review Board (18 members with regional representation) and two reviewers at-large. The reviewers at-large are selected based on self-reported interest and expertise.

Reviewer ratings will determine the disposition of the manuscript. If at least two reviewers rate the manuscript "ACCEPT" or "ACCEPT WITH MINOR REVISIONS," the author is notified and sent an acceptance letter and copies of the reviewers' comments. If at least two reviewers rate the manuscript "REJECT, but INVITE RESUBMISSION" or "REJECT," the manuscript is returned to the author with the recommendations made by the reviewers. See "Overall Recommendation" section for details at the end of this document. The editor does NOT have the authority to overturn the decision of the reviewers.

 

THE ROLE OF THE REVIEWER

The role of the reviewer can best be summarized by reviewing the review criteria listed on the Manuscript Review Form.

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework:

  1. What is the research base for the manuscript?
  2. Does the theory/concept lead to the problem, purpose and/or objectives, and the proposed solution?
  3. Is appropriate literature cited?
  4. Was a theoretical/conceptual framework built?

Purpose and Objectives:

  1. Are the purposes and/or objectives supported by the theoretical/conceptual framework?
  2. Are the purposes and/or objectives clearly stated?
  3. Do the objectives/research questions of qualitative research evolve as the study unfolds?
  4. In qualitative research studies, are the biases of the researchers reported?

Methods/Procedures:

  1. Are the essentials of methods/procedures reported?
  2. Are the methods/procedures correct?
  3. Are weaknesses in the methods/procedures accounted for and/or explained?

Results/Findings:

  1. Are the results/findings generated from the data collected?
  2. Are the results in proper format?

Conclusions:

  1. Are the conclusions supported by the results of the study?
  2. Do the conclusions contribute to theory or practice in agricultural education?
  3. Do the conclusions lead to recommendations?
  4. Did the authors discuss the relationships/differences between the conclusions and the research foundation contained in the theoretical base?

Recommendations/Implications:

  1. Are the recommendations drawn from the conclusions?
  2. Are the recommendations tenable?
  3. Are recommendations offered for further research?

Contribution to Knowledge:

  1. What is the significance of the manuscript to agricultural education in its broadest sense?
  2. Does the study of the problem lead to a clear solution/conclusion?
  3. Do the conclusions/findings contribute to theory or practice in agricultural education?
  4. Is the situation of the study applicable to the readership?

Appropriate for the Journal: Does the manuscript fit the philosophy of the Journal?

  • Current trends and issues in agricultural education
  • Descriptions and analysis of agricultural and program innovations
  • Evaluations of programs in agricultural education
  • Philosophical considerations (not editorials)

Overall Recommendation: The Journal has four decisions:

  1. ACCEPT: The manuscript is acceptable with only slight editorial modifications or changes that can be made without further review.
  2. ACCEPT WITH MINOR REVISIONS: The manuscript is acceptable with only editorial modifications and changes recommended by reviewers. Authors should address those changes recommended by reviewers.
  3. REJECT, but INVITE RESUBMISSION: The manuscript is rejected, but requires resubmission with major revisions. Author(s) should address all major concerns or questions raised by the reviewers.
  4. REJECT: The manuscript contains major flaws which may or may not be correctable.

Reviewer Comments:

Explicit and positively-worded comments (perhaps in the form of a question) in a critique are very powerful teaching tools and do much to improve scholarship in our field of study. Reviewers are strongly encouraged to provide such comments following each section or upload an electronic file with edits/comments provided directly on the manuscript using MS Word's Review (track changes and new comment features). When resubmitting manuscripts after the review process, the author MUST address Reviewer Comments. Manuscripts that are resubmitted will be forwarded to the original reviewers.

Go to top