Review Process

Background:

The EJOLTs review processes have been developed to to be rigorous, evaluative and educational. The first stage is a double blind review of your paper to establish whether or not:

• It is of an academic and scholarly quality appropriate for an academic journal;
• Includes distinguishing qualities of a Living Educational Theory research methodology and/or makes a contribution to the field of Living Educational Theory research.

Papers that pass the double blind review stage progress to the open review stage conducted in the web space of cooperation (moodle). In the open review stage the conversation is guided by a rubric to help the author/s create a paper to the point that the reviewers recommend the Editorial Board consider accepting for publication. Communication between reviewers and authors is transparent and our readers are also able to participate by reading and contributing to the conversation. When a paper is published the conversation is available in the 'published papers' section of https://ejolts.org.

When a paper has been accepted for review

When papers successfully passed through double blind review stage the Chair establishes a Review Team comprising three reviewers, including, if possible, a reviewer requested by the author. The Chair then contacts the author to tell them who is on their Review Team, and asks them to upload their paper to the open review space. 

If the paper is not to go forward to the next stage of the review process at this time the Chair will tell the author/s why and what action they might find helpful to consider.

When the author has placed their paper in the Open Review Space author and reviewers are expected to work towards a paper that meets the following criteria for publication using the following questions as a guide ('author' is used to mean one or more authors):

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, (their valid explanation of their educational influence in their own learning and most importantly, in the learning of others and or social formations within which they practice) for it to be understood?

2. Is it potentially comprehensible to an audience interested in extending their knowledge of the transformational possibilities of Living Educational 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 is possible to go through the whole process within six months and exceptionally within four months. However, there are occasions when it has taken considerably longer. Everyone is busy, and contribute their services freely but such a commitment will enable us to publish quality issues two times a year.