Advice to author/s


The EJOLTs review processes have been developed to to be rigorous, evaluative and educational. When you submit your paper it goes through two review processes. 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 usually progress to the open review stage conducted in the web space of cooperation (moodle). The open review process is both transparent and provides an educational opportunity for author/s and reviewers and others. 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

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.

It is never pleasant to have a paper 'rejected' so authors are strongly advised to first check that their paper is suitable for EJOLTs. Living Educational Theory research is a form of practitioner self-study research distinguished by the practitioner researcher's valid explanations of their educational influence in their own learning, the learning of others and the learning of the social formations within which they practice. A practitioner researcher engages in Living Educational Theory research to research their practice to understand and improve it and in the process clarify their embodied living ontological and social values that form their explanatory principles of their explanations of educational influence in learning and the standards by which they evaluate improvements in the educational influence of their practice. For the most up-to-date text on Living Educational Theory research authors are strongly advised to read, Whitehead, J. (2019) Creating a living-educational-theory from questions of the kind, ‘how do I improve my practice?’ 30 years on with Living Theory research. EJOLTs 12(2), 1-19. and watch his TedX talk on Living Theory research.

Second, authors are also strongly urged to use the the pre-submission checklist and ensure that their paper meets all the submission guidelines.

A few points to bear in mind that may help your paper to be found by potential readers and to be read:

  • Why are you writing your paper and for whom?
  • What is the main point you would like your reader to take away with them?
  • Keep in mind you are writing a paper, not a thesis or a book of your life's work, so keep it focussed.
  • Does your title communicate the essence of your paper? A short meaningful yet eye catching title is better than one that goes on and on and... (6 words are much better than 16)
  • Choose your key words carefully - they are what help your paper to be found in a search on google etc. Think of who might be looking for your work and what search words they might use.
  • Keep in mind that your abstract is what attracts someone to want to read your paper. Your abstract is 230 word absolute maximum - less is often best.
  • If you include images and video in your paper make sure they help to communicate something important and are referred to in the text.
  • If you include video say what your reader is to get from watching which part of it. Do not expect someone to watch for more than a moment. You can advise them with a reference in the text should you believe that they might find the whole thing of interest and make sure you add the reference to the full video in the reference section.
  • Keep your language as straightforward and simple as possible - don't make my mistake and have sentences that go on and on and...

Last, but not least, creating an account and testing its rigor and validity is an important part of Living Educational Theory research. It is not a simple, quick process. First, write for yourself to enable you to learn from researching your practice and generating a values-based explanation of your educational influence in your own learning, the learning of others and the learning of social formations you live and work in. What is the practice you have been researching? Have you been doing what you thought you were doing? What is the consequence of your attempts to improve your practice? What learning has occurred and by whom? What evidence do you have to support your claim to have had an educational influence in any learning? What values have emerged and have been clarified as you have researched your practice to understand and improve it? Do they explain your educational influence in learning? What evidence do you have to support your claims? These are just a few questions to get you going.

When you are clear about the educational knowledge you have generated think of your audience and write to communicate what you have learned that might be of use and interest to them. Keep in mind that the point of the exercise is not just to improve your learning and what you are doing, it is to enhance your educational influence in the learning of others and the social formations within which you practice AND to contribute to a global educational practitioner knowledgebase with explanations of educational influence in learning distinguished by values that carry hope for the flourishing of humanity.

We look forward to reading your papersmiley

When a paper has been accepted for review

When papers successfully passed through double blind review stage 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 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


Allocated time

Deadline for June publication

Deadline for December publication

Start of production cycle


Start date Jan 1st

Start date July 1st

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

5-week window

10th Feb

5th August

Chair arranges double blind review

1 week

17th Feb

12th August

1. Not for EJOLTs - author/s advised


2. Further work needed before resubmitting - author/s advised

3. Accepted to progress to open review – three reviewers appointed (one is the author’s choice)

2 weeks

3rd March

26th September

Author/s work with reviewers within the Open Review Space to strengthen the paper to the point where reviewers advise accept for publication. *

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 formatted and put into template and sent to author/s to sign off on

1 week

23rd June

16th December

Chair sends paper to EJOLTS web manager for publication

1 week

30th June

23rd December



End of June

End of December

* 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.

What happens when you have submitted your academic poster


Page updated 2nd May 2016

Details on academic posters and EJOLTs see file below