EJOLTs Publishing Standards Checklist

The checklist table below contains a summary of the EJOLTs publishing standards that are listed here on this website.  The aim is for this checklist is to provide a brief guide for all those involved in the writing, development and publishing of a paper.

EJOLTs publishing standards checklist
Standard	Reviewer's comment
Items 1–4 refer to the standards expected of a paper published by any academic journal
1. The paper is written in English of a standard appropriate for an international academic journal.  It uses accurate English spelling, grammar and syntax.
2. Word count limits: abstract maximum 230 words; paper  maximum 12,000 words (including footnotes, references and appendices).
3. All references are correct in both the text and in the references / bibliography sections.
4. The paper is of a high academic and scholarly quality i.e. the author:
(a) Provides a well-reasoned argument within a clear context
(b) Makes claims to have created new knowledge
(c) Provides evidence to support all knowledge claims
(d) Critically engages their research with insights from the literature
(e) Makes clear the significance of the paper.
Item 5 referes to the standards expected of a paper published by EJOLTs
5. The paper clearly includes the distinguishing qualities of a Living Educational Theory methodology i.e. the author:
(a) Presents their clearly defined and explicated living-educational-theory as the developmental heart of the paper
(b) Has ensured that the paper can be understood by practitioners living/working in diverse fields of practice, research and cultural contexts.
(c) Positions the research within the learning of the social formation, which forms the context of the practice, the learning of those who comprise it, and their own learning – as contributing to their own professional educational development and learning and to the wider flourishing of Humanity
(d) Identifies and clarifies their embodied values, which have emerged in the course of the research
(e) Uses the values that emerge as the explanatory principles for the account
(f) Uses these values as practical standards of judgement to support claims to have improved educational practice and educational influences
(g) Uses these values as epistemological standards of judgement to support claims to have improved knowledge
(h) Communicates clearly how practical and epistemological knowledge claims are validated
(i) Presents an account that is relatable to its readers, that is, it allows the reader to envisage how the research might usefully be applied within their own professional context.
Further notes

The full review rubrics can be downloaded from the following links:

• Author's review rubric
• Blind Review checklist

The items on the rubric are similar, just amended for the particular user.

** Authors are required to include a completed rubric with their submitted manuscript **