These are members of the EJOLTs community that are currently available as reviewers
- Donna Allender, USA
- Professor Stephen Bigger, United Kingdom
- Arianna Briganti, Italy
- Dr. Pip Bruce Ferguson, New Zealand
- Professor Tim Cain, United Kingdom
- Liz Campbell, Canada
- Dr. Sigrid Gjøtterud, Norway
- Dr. Brian Jennings, Ghana
- Dr. Mark Potts, United Kingdom
- Dr Jocelyn Romero Demirbag, Hawaii
- Dr. Jacqueline Scholes-Rhodes, United Kingdom
- Dr. Ram Singh-Punia, United Kingdom
- Dr Philip Tattersall, Australia
- Brian Williamson, United Kingdom
- Dr Liz Wolvaardt, South Africa
When a paper is accepted for review a team of three will be formed. The paper's author/s can chose one member from the list above. The other two will be chosen to add to the diversity and balance of expertise, knowledge and experience on the team. It is anticipated that the reviewers as well as the author/s will find the review process educational and we will all benefit from the experience of learning together.
The reviewing process, like all of EJOLTS is constantly evolving so please keep checking the updates. Here are a few pointers to keep in mind:
- Does the submission account for influences the author has developed in their own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of social formations?
- The submissions should reveal a desire to bring life-affirming and life-enhancing values of, for example, love, freedom, justice, compassion, courage, care and democratic evaluation, more fully into the world.
- In what ways might your own experiences and insights be brought to bear in order to enhance the submission in some way?
Rather than a review being perceived as a static process, we are hoping it will engage reviewers and the author/s (and anyone who is interested) in dynamic discussions in the open review space so we might, together, improve what we are doing.
The team at EJOLTS offers a creative and dialectical space within which we all feel comfortable to challenge and/or affirm in an atmosphere of mutual learning. As reviewers respond to iterations of the paper they will keep in mind whether to advise:
- ACCEPT - Publish as it stands;
- ACCEPT with modification - But needs further work as indicated in the review;
- RESUBMIT: The author could resubmit after undertaking the following work but with no guarantee of acceptance;
- RESUBMIT, WITH SUPPORT: The author will be offered reviewer's support if they wish to revise the paper;
- REJECT: For reasons indicated
Please, feel free to join peer-reviewers forum and we would welcome any feedback about the process of review that might help us to improve what we are doing in our journal.