Open review process

Background:

We are developing our open review process, which is both evaluative and educational in the process of papers being created which are of high academic and scholarly quality. It means that communication between reviewers and authors is transparent and our readers are also able to participate in the whole process. For this purpose we have established our web space of cooperation (moodle) where you can read the responses of our reviewers and post your comments.

One of the main distinguishing features of our review process is the degree of openness we are encouraging in it. It is hoped that author's will have a sense of fairness and openness and reviewers will also be able to learn from the open process. 

The other distinguishing features are that the EJOLTS review process is both evaluative and educational. 

What happens when you have submitted your paper or academic poster

The Chair of the Editorial Board sends a copy of submissions received to the Editorial Board members asking them to skim-read and say whether in their opinion there is an indication that the submission:

  • Is, or could be, of suitable academic and scholarly quality;
  • Is a living-theory account (that is the researcher offers their values-based explanation of their educational influence in learning) or is concerned with Living Educational Theory research

and whether they would be prepared to be a member of the Review Team.

This is:

  • To ensure all the Editorial Board is kept acquainted with what is coming through;
  • To ensure that authors and reviewers don’t spend a lot of time on something that is not appropriate for EJOLTs;
  • To identify who on the Editorial Board is able and willing to be a member of the Review Team.

When responses have been received from at least three members of the Editorial Board saying accept for review and there does not appear to be a need for further consultation, the Chair will establish a Review Team comprising three reviewers, including, if possible, the reviewer requested by the author. The Chair will then contact the author to tell them who is on their Review Team, and ask them to upload their paper to the open review space. If the paper is not to go for review at this time the Chair will advise the author, suggest they place the paper in the Community Space where members of the EJOLTs may make suggestions to help them develop their paper for EJOLTS.

When a paper has been accepted for review

When the paper has been accepted for review and the author has placed their paper in the Open Review Space the reviewers and author/s begin a process to help the author/s strengthen their paper to meet the criteria as follows used to judge whether the paper is of publishable quality.

In the following we are using the term 'author' to include both single and multiple authors. In the open review process, author and reviewers are expected to work towards a paper that meets the following criteria for publication:

1. Is there sufficient detail for a reader to understand the value-based explanation of the author for their educational influence in their own learning, the learning of others and the learning of the social formations where they live and work? Is the author transparent about what constitutes their driving values, why and how these are manifested in their practice, and through what process of reflection. In other words, has the author provided sufficient detail of their living-educational-theory for it to be understood?

2. Is it potentially comprehensible to an audience interested in extending their knowledge of the transformational possibilities of Living Theory research? By this we mean an audience who wishes to develop their understanding of how their core life-affirming and life-enhancing, ontological and relational values inform and transform their lives, personally and professionally.

3. Can it be understood by practitioners from diverse fields of practice and research? Where context-specific language and jargon are used, are they clarified?

4. Is there sufficient evidence to support all the claims that are made?

5. Are there sufficient details of how the author has validated their claims to know so that the reader can share in that knowledge through the creative aspects of their own reading?

6. Is the normative background of the author and their work clear? By this we mean has the author provided sufficient details, for instance, of their socio-cultural, historical, economic and political contexts, and inter-personal relationships?

7. Is the intra-personal context of the author clear? By this we mean is there sufficient detail for the reader to know enough about the author to understand their account?

8.  Are the author's' explanatory principles and living standards of judgment clear in this paper?

9. Is the paper of a high intellectual and scholarly quality? By this we mean has a reasonable and well-reasoned argument been made and has the author critically engaged with  thinking of others?

Each reviewer is responsible for advising the Chair of the Editorial Board when, in their opinion a paper meets the criteria.

When all reviewers recommend a version of the paper be considered for publication the Chair sends to the Editorial Board and asks them if they accept the recommendation. Should their be different opinions between the reviewers, or between the Editorial Board the Chair will work with them to come to the best decision at that time on how to proceed.

When a paper has been accepted for publication it is carefully proof read and the proofed copy sent to the author for them to do a final check. The final proof copy is sent by the proof readers on for putting into the template and format checking, integrated with the rest of an issue’s content, page numbers inserted etc, changed into a pdf and passed on for the last check before publishing on the EJOLTS site.

It is difficult to be precise about time-frames, but it ought to be possible to go through the whole process within four-months. Everyone is busy, and contribute their services freely but such a commitment will enable us to publish quality issues two times a year.
 
Indicative timeline

Action

Allocated time

Deadline for June publication

Deadline for December publication

Start of production cycle

 

Start date Jan 1st

Start date July 1st

Author submits draft paper (by 8th February / 2nd August)

5-week window

10th Feb

5th August

Chair disseminates to Editorial Board.
Question: Should this paper be reviewed? Three responses:

1 week

17th Feb

12th August

1. Not Living Theory - authors advised

 

2. Needs preliminary work – enters Community Space – strengthened – ready for review#

3. Ready for review – three reviewers appointed (one is the author’s choice)

2 weeks

3rd March

26th September

The review process takes place within the Open Review Space to strengthen the paper to the point where it is ready for publication. The paper is copy-edited for content, grammar / syntax (including referencing check). *

12 weeks

26th May

18th November

Paper received by Chair

1 week

2nd June

25th November

Paper circulated to Editorial Board for publishing approval

1 week

9th June

2nd December

Paper is proofread

1 week

16th June

9th December

Paper returns to Chair; put into template

1 week

23rd June

16th December

Chair sends paper to EJOLTS web manager for publication

1 week

30th June

23rd December

Published

 

End of June

End of December

# 2 weeks are allocated for papers that need preliminary work in the Community Space; this period may be extended to 4 weeks, with commensurately less time available for Open Review (part of this work having been done during time in the Community Space).

* The Chair is notified after 4 weeks whether the paper is likely to be ready for publication in the next issue, or whether a period greater than the allocated 12 weeks will be required (in which case, the paper will be published in a subsequent issue.

Page updated 2nd May 2016

Details on academic posters and EJOLTs see file below