Abstract

We once again acknowledge our reviewers for the insight and developmental critique which they so unstintingly offered. Each journal article is anonymised and subjected to ‘blind’ peer review by two reviewers and, in this process, it is inevitable that variations of interpretation and evaluation occurred, at times resulting in a third reviewer being consulted. We are grateful for the grace with which reviewers engaged and attempted to resolve any sticking points on such occasions. This has served to enhance the quality of our articles and strengthen our authors going forward.
 Thanks to all the authors who made submissions to JOVACET and subjected their work to scrutiny. We trust that you will continue to contribute to this important vehicle for research in vocational, adult and continuing education and training.
 Finally, the publication of this third issue of JOVACET was made possible by the Teaching and Learning Development Capacity Improvement Programme (TLDCIP) which is being implemented through a partnership between the Department of Higher Education and Training and the European Union. We are grateful for this support to the third issue of the journal, Volume 2, Issue 2.
 We look forward to the ongoing support of our Editorial Committee and Advisory Board members who are advocates for JOVACET in the various spheres of their lives, and thank you all most sincerely.

Highlights

  • We once again acknowledge our reviewers for the insight and developmental critique which they so unstintingly offered

  • Each journal article is anonymised and subjected to ‘blind’ peer review by two reviewers and, in this process, it is inevitable that variations of interpretation and evaluation occurred, at times resulting in a third reviewer being consulted

  • We trust that you will continue to contribute to this important vehicle for research in vocational, adult and continuing education and training

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We once again acknowledge our reviewers for the insight and developmental critique which they so unstintingly offered. Each journal article is anonymised and subjected to ‘blind’ peer review by two reviewers and, in this process, it is inevitable that variations of interpretation and evaluation occurred, at times resulting in a third reviewer being consulted.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call