Revised Alt-j Reviewers Guidelines_2006

Association for Learning Technology Journal (ALT-J) 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. Typical subjects for submission include: theoretical debate on learning strategies and their influence on courseware design, practical applications at developmental stage, evaluative studies of courseware use in the teaching and leaning process, assessment of potential of technological advances in the delivery of higher education, exploitation of on-line information systems, discussions of policy and strategy at institutional and discipline levels survey papers are welcome provided that they are timely, up to date and well structured. The Association is determined to establish the area of learning technology as a discipline in its own right; any submission whose quality and distinctiveness support this ambition will be considered, even if the focus lies slightly outside the boundaries implied in the list above. Quality is critically dependent on the dialogue between authors and referees, mediated through the editorial process, to arrive at papers of recognised international excellence. In an area where topicality shades very easily into journalistic reportage, it is essential that the highest academic standards be upheld. These guidelines are intended to: provide an overview of the review process provide structure and guidance for new reviewers ensure a consistent approach by all reviewers towards reading and reviewing articles for ALT-J maintain the quality and standard expected of an academic journal.

ALT-J Reviewers Guidelines_ updated January 2006 Editors: Grainne Conole, Martin Oliver and Jane Seale

2. The editorial team The editors of ALT-J administer the everyday running of the Journal. Their main role is to: encourage submission of articles from appropriate and relevant sources receive submitted articles from authors and send out to reviewers for comment receive reviewers comments and make a decision on publication based on these comments send reviewers comments to authors, advise on an appropriate course of action and respond to authors’ queries regarding the feedback send final drafts of articles to publishers for typesetting liase with publishers regarding proof-reading drafts of the journal liase with the editorial board. The Editorial Board of the Journal support the editors in their tasks by: offering guidance on professional and academic material ensuring the journal reflects current thinking and developments in practice

3. The role of reviewers Reviewers for ALT-J are required to provide constructive and timely reviews using the ALT-J Authors Guidelines and the reviewer’s feedback form. Feedback should be fair and within a reasonable timeframe (usually 3-4 weeks). Constructive comments should be made on the originality of the paper and the presentation of ideas and importance in the wider context of learning technology. 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. 4.1 Reading the entire manuscript 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: Is the article easy to read and follow (communicating arguments in an understandable way)? Does the article flow with a beginning, middle and end? Is the written style appropriate for ALT-J? (Look out for unedited project reports or overly journalistic newsletter style articles).

ALT-J Reviewers Guidelines_ updated January 2006 Editors: Grainne Conole, Martin Oliver and Jane Seale

4.2 Review the manuscript section by section The sections of the article may differ depending on whether its purpose is: reporting the results of a research project, evaluation study or survey presenting a review/critique of theory, models or frameworks discussing policy and strategy issues. See http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/caltauth.asp for authors guidelines and style samples for the different kind of articles that might be submitted to ALT-J. Depending on the purpose and nature of the article some or all of the following guidelines may be useful. Title Is the title concise, stimulating and relevant? 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 Is the research question/problem clearly identified? Is the aim of the paper/research clearly stated? Is the literature review relevant and comprehensive? Has the relevance to practice of learning technologists been highlighted? Method Is the research design chosen appropriate? Has the chosen research design been clearly described and justified? Have the chosen statistical tests been adequately justified? Are the ethics of the research considered? Results/Findings Are the results/findings presented clearly for interpretation? Are tables and figures relevant and explained? If statistics were used, are they presented appropriately (please note that authors may use verbatim reports from print outs of statistical packages - e.g. Minitab- where p values might be presented as p= 0.000. For the purposes of the journal we require a more conventional p value to be reported e.g. p<.001) Analysis/Discussion Is the discussion based on the results/findings?

ALT-J Reviewers Guidelines_ updated January 2006 Editors: Grainne Conole, Martin Oliver and Jane Seale

Have the findings been analysed effectively? Have the results been interpreted accurately? Have the aims of the paper/research been fulfilled? Does the discussion relate back to the literature review? Have the practical implications of the results/findings been discussed? Has the methodology been critically evaluated? Have issues around reliability/validity/trustworthiness been addressed? Conclusion Do the conclusions relate logically to the results/discussion? Are there further recommendations made from the research? References Has the correct referencing style been used? Are all the references quoted within the text also listed in the reference list at the end of the article? Are the references complete? (Please check that pages numbers, place of publication etc. are not missing.) 4.3. Making a decision regarding suitability for publication Before making a recommendation to the editors regarding publication, it is useful to consider a number of issues that might influence your decision. 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. 4.4. Make a recommendation to the editors regarding suitability for publication 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: Suitable for publication in ALT-J but requires minimal amendments 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.

ALT-J Reviewers Guidelines_ updated January 2006 Editors: Grainne Conole, Martin Oliver and Jane Seale

Suitable for publication in ALT-J but requires major amendments 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.). Recommend major amendments and resubmission 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. Unsuitable for publication in ALT-J 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. 4.5 Give written feedback on the reviewers feedback form 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.

ALT-J Reviewers Guidelines_ updated January 2006 Editors: Grainne Conole, Martin Oliver and Jane Seale

Should you wish to add your comments directly into the paper please DO NOT use the insert comment facility of Word, as Word tends to add the identity of the commentator in the comments box within the text and the properties details of the file, thus invalidating the anonymity of the review process. Instead, please type directly into the text and use the track changes facility.

5. The peer review process Reviewer’s comments are presented anonymously to authors. Your review is also confidential in that its contents will only be shared between yourself, the editors and the author. Articles under review and completed Review Forms are therefore not to be revealed to other persons. 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.

ALT-J Reviewers Guidelines_ updated January 2006 Editors: Grainne Conole, Martin Oliver and Jane Seale