Aitchison, Claire

Channock, Kate

Geurin, Cally

Rowland, David

English

Research Online

Journal	of	Academic	Language	and	Learning			(JALL)	Editors’	Report	and	Workshop	for	Reviewers	and	Authors		Presented	by:	David	Rowland		UQ,	Claire	Aitchison		UNSW,	Kate	Chanock,	Cally	Guerin	Adelaide	University	for	AALL	Conference	2015			Workshop	Overview	n  Overview	of	JALL	–	Brief	report	and		practices	&	procedures	n  Outline	common	expectations	for	scholarly	papers	and	the		peer	reviewing	process		n  	Hands-on	peer	review	activity	JALL	2015	Report	§  JALL	is	an	Open	Access	double-blind		peer-reviewed	online	journal	with	Editorial	Board	and	public	policies	re	scope,	processes,		etc.	§  Est.	2007,	as	of	October	2015,		137	papers	published	§  Acceptance	rate:	54%	§  Median	number	of	downloads	per	article:	1504	Ê  (see	Report	Handout)			Review	Criteria	for	JALL	Ê Relevance and interest to the readership  Ê Grounding in theory/scholarship (i.e. the paper is informed by relevant published work in the field) Ê Substance & Originality (i.e. the paper makes a worthwhile contribution to the field) Ê Quality of research design and data analysis; and/or soundness of arguments presented Ê Quality of the Writing 5 5 JALLʼs publication process 1.  Author submits manuscript.  2.  Editor checks it fits within the journalʼs scope and forwards the paper to a sub-editor.  3.  Sub-editor reads it and invites two reviewers to provide a review within 4 weeks according to the journalʼs criteria. Double-blind process.  4.  Sub-editor makes a decision based on reviewer reports. Either the  paper is accepted outright, author asked to revise (& maybe resubmit for review), or the paper is declined. 5.  Once a paper is provisionally accepted, it is copy and layout edited (i.e. even after “acceptance” an author may be asked to make further revisions, usually only minor). 6.  The author is sent “proofs” to check prior to publication. 6 6 Accept submission  §  No flaws of any kind found; publish the paper as it is.  Revisions required  §  A few minor flaws found (e.g., typos; referencing errors; a small number of unclear statements). §  The author’s revisions will be evaluated by the editors. Resubmit for review  §  Paper has significant weaknesses in terms of structure, argument, acknowledgement of prior work and/or analysis of data, but holds the promise of making a useful contribution to the field.  §  Revised manuscript needs to go back to the referee to be evaluated. Decline submission  §  Has major flaws; doesn’t meet criteria and unlikely to, even after revisions. Reviewer rankings Reviewing	activity	Instructions:	Read	the	composite	review	provided.	What	do	you	think	of	it?	What	are	its	strengths	and	weaknesses?	(For	example,	you	may	consider	tone,	content,	how	the	author	is	positioned.)		Group	report	back:	What	are	the	most	important	principles	reviewers	should	keep	in	mind	when	providing	feedback	to	authors?	8 8 Reviewing guidelines Ê  ʻReviewʼ not ʻmarkʼ the manuscripts Ê  Developmental versus gate keeping role Ê  Constructive versus destructive feedback •  Tone and content  •  Explicitness – i.e. tie comments to specific, clearly indicated examples from the authorʼs text •  Comment on what is written as well as what is missing •  Ensure consistency in rating and recommendation  Reviewing guidelines  cont. Ê Use the template as your guide. Ê Make your point with concrete examples (include identifiers such as page numbers)   Ê  Literature and theory - relevance, absences, accuracy, currency Ê Research - appropriateness, transparency, reliability, replicability, veracity of ‘claims’ Ê Argument - logical, well developed Ê Structure and presentation Ê Sentence level matters 9 Editors	love	it	when….	a	reviewer	can	spot	what's	missing	and	provide	suggestions	that	will	really	improve	the	intellectual/	scholarly	contribution	of	the	text.		submissions	are	carefully	proofread	and	presented	according	to	journal's	specified	requirements.	the	submission	explicitly	states	the	paper’s	overall	argument	and	its	new	contribution	to	the	field.	Editors	hate	it	when….	reviewers	criticize	but	can't/don't	suggest	how	to	improve.	reviewers	say:	“In	section	X,	the	authors	should	discuss	the	work	by	Smith	and	Jones	(2012),”	but	don’t	provide	any	other	bibliographic	information	for	the	reference(s).	authors	ignore	reviewer	criticisms,	or	worse	still,	imply	they	have	attended	to	the	criticism	but	really	have	not,	or	have	done	so	in	a	very	paltry	fashion.		submissions	are	sloppy	(different	from	ignorance)	in	expression	and/or	referencing.	the	author	appears	to	be	blissfully	unaware	of	the	existing,	current	literature	pertaining	to	the	field	under	discussion.		Advice	for	authors	Ask	yourself	not	just,			"What	did	we	do	and	why	did	we	do	it?”		but	also			"What	did	we	learn	that	other	people	[in	the	AALL	field]		could	benefit	from	hearing	about?"	References / Further reading Ê Colquhoun, D. (2011). Publish or perish: peer review and the corruption of science, The Guardian. Ê Hemmings, B., & Kay, R. (2010). University lecturer publication output: Qualifications, time and confidence count. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(2), 185 - 197. Ê  From the authorʼs perspective: “Surviving the reviewing process and getting published” http://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/60/50  13 

Journal of Academic Language and Learning (JALL) Editors’ Report and Workshop for Reviewers and Authors

https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&amp;context=aall2015

Journal of Academic Language and Learning (JALL) Editors’ Report and Workshop for Reviewers and Authors

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Online