Demystifying Peer Review: The Journal of Geoscience Education Peer Review Process

Abstract

Peer review is at the heart of publishing high-quality scholarly work. Unfortunately, the manuscript review process can be dark and mysterious to both authors and reviewers. A clearer understanding of the peer review process at the Journal of Geoscience Education (JGE) will enable authors to better understand the feedback they receive at various levels of the review process and will enable reviewers to direct their comments toward meaningful improvement of submitted papers. In this editorial, we aim to demystify the peer review process for JGE and share the primary reasons why papers are rejected from JGE, based on our collective experience on the editorial board.As previously outlined in our February 2016 editorial (St. John et al., 2016), JGE accepts four types of papers: (1) Research, (2) Curriculum & Instruction, (3) Literature Review, and (4) Commentaries. Typically, all papers go through full peer review. Exceptions are sometimes made for Commentaries on issues that fit within the expertise of the editorial board. The structure of the current editorial board is shown in Figure 1. JGE has dedicated editors for Research papers (Stokes) and Curriculum & Instruction papers (Petcovic), with both editors and the editor-in-chief (St. John) sharing responsibility for other paper types.Any member of the professional community who is knowledgeable about geoscience education research and practices and/or has expertise relevant to the subject of the paper can serve as a peer reviewer. If you have ever published in JGE, or if you have presented your work in geoscience education at a professional conference, then you are eligible to be a peer reviewer! Associate editors (AEs) are invited to join the editorial board from the pool of peer reviewers; we typically invite people who have a record of timely, high-quality reviews over a period of at least a year. Experienced AEs are selected by the editor-in-chief to act as the Research and Curriculum & Instruction editors, who are invited to serve multiyear terms. Finally, the editor-in-chief is selected by the National Association of Geoscience Teachers and serves a renewable 3 to 5 y term.As shown in Figure 2, the peer review process begins (step 1) when an (note that we use the term author here to include both single-authored and coauthored papers) submits his or her paper through the online Allen Press system. The editor-in-chief performs an initial quality check (step 2) to ensure that the paper meets the formatting requirements of JGE. If the paper does not meet these requirements, it is returned to the for reformatting. The may resubmit the paper to start the review process again, but our advice to authors is to make sure that the formatting requirements are adhered to from the outset.Once the paper passes the initial quality check, it is assigned to either the Research or the Curriculum & Instruction editor based on the paper type. The editor-inchief is also assigned papers to keep the editorial workload balanced. The editor (or editor-in-chief) screens the paper (step 3) to decide whether it sufficiently meets the review guidelines to merit peer review. One of two outcomes is possible here: If the paper fails to meet the review guidelines, or if it does not match with the scope of JGE, it is rejected and returned to the author. In this case, the may be invited to revise and resubmit, if the paper offers sufficient potential. If the editor (or editor-in-chief) decides that the paper meets the review guidelines to a sufficient extent, it progresses to full peer review. Sometimes at this stage, the editors may recommend that a paper initially submitted under the Research category be reviewed under the Curriculum & Instruction category, or vice versa. If this happens, and editor or the editor-in-chief will contact the to advise that the paper is being reclassified.To initiate the peer review process, the editor (or editorin-chief) assigns the paper to an AE (step 4). …