Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Reviewer’s Guidelines
1. Introduction
The Association for Learning Technology Journal (ALT-J) seeks to fulfil the aims of the
Association as a whole, two of which are:
(a) to promote good practice in the use and development of learning technologies in higher
education;
(b) to facilitate interchange between practitioners, developers, researchers and policy makers
in higher education and industry.
The Editorial Board of the Journal support the editors in their tasks by:
Reviewers should also comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, giving clear
reasons by it needs further work or where it is not suitable for publication in ALT-J. The
editors require a clear and detailed critique of the paper to assist in making a decision about
publication and how to proceed.
4. Reviewing a manuscript
The following section offers a guide for new reviewers and is intended to support experienced
reviewers who may need direction from time to time.
This allows the reviewer to gain an overview of the overall standard of written work. At this
stage it is also useful to check if the paper is written according to the Authors Guidelines.
Considerations at this point may include:
The sections of the article may differ depending on whether its purpose is:
Depending on the purpose and nature of the article some or all of the following guidelines
may be useful.
Title
Abstract
Does the abstract summarise the study and interest you sufficiently to want to read more?
Is it a succinct summary of the paper including findings and recommendations?
Does it make clear the links with current or future theory/research?
Introduction
Method
Results/Findings
Analysis/Discussion
Conclusion
References
Is the article original, scholarly and at the leading edge of learning technology?
Would the article be of interest to a substantial number of ALT-J readers?
Is the content (including references) accurate and up to date?
It is unusual for an article to be suitable for publication as it is. Most articles require some
modification.
The reviewer’s feedback form is designed for you to summarise your decision about the
suitability of the manuscript for publication. Your comments should reflect the
decision/recommendation you make, which could be either:
The article is suitable for publication but is likely to require some minor amendments that the
author should be able to make quite quickly/easily. Minor alterations usually involve
amending, adding to or reorganising some sections of the manuscript. The extent of the
amendments should not significantly delay publication of the article.
The article will be suitable for publication once the author undertakes a re-write of some
sections of the manuscript (e.g. adding more detail to methodology, adding or deleting
literature in order to strengthen focus or argument.).
The article has the potential to be suitable for publication only if the author undertakes a
substantial re-write of the manuscript. In this circumstance the major amendments are likely
to involve amending, adding to or re-organising most sections of the manuscript. The extent
and nature of the amendments required mean that the author may require some time to
resubmit the paper AND that the paper should be re-reviewed.
An article may be unsuitable for publication in ALT-J for any of the following reasons:
the content of the article is not suitable for publication in ALT-J. It may be an excellent
piece of work or research, but would be better suited for publication elsewhere. You may
wish to make a recommendation about this;
the article is so poorly written and/or requires so many changes that publication in ALT-J
would be impractical;
the article does not present substantially new information or reproduces information that
has been published more extensively elsewhere.
Giving feedback to the author is the most important part of the review process and should not
be done without considerable thought. The aim is to provide comments on the academic
structure and content of the article.
try to find some positive points to start your review with- there are always some!
justify why you think there is a problem, offer solutions or indicate what you think the
author might do to resolve the problems
avoid comments that are curt, oblique, or destructive in nature
give feedback that is objective and not your personal viewpoint
take a flexible approach to the author’s style of writing. If the style is suitable but not your
personal style, do not ask the author to change it.
Please be as detailed as possible in your comments as they assist the editors in making a
decision about publication and justifying that decision to the author. It is particularly hard to
justify rejection of a paper to an author when all they have received is 1 or 2 lines of
feedback.
It is the intention that, even when the papers are rejected, the referee's comments may still
result in greatly improved resubmissions or new submissions, to ALT-J at later dates.
On the occasions where reviewers differ in their recommendations to the editor, a third review
is carried out. Differing reviews may also be discussed between the editors.
If you see an article in print that you did not recommend for publication, it is important to
remember that at least two other people have decided that it was appropriate and suitable for
publication in ALT-J.