Guidelines for the Reviewers
In seeking to advance the understanding and practice of JrTP and continuing education, the journal strives to be inclusive in aims and scopes to stimulate a problem-oriented, critical approach to research and practice. The following elements (i.e., they should not be always treated as such but) are used to review scholarly manuscripts submitted to JrTP.
Importance of the Problem. A problem or subject addressed by a manuscript should contribute to knowledge or theory pertinent to aims and scope. The importance is enhanced when a paper promotes understanding or improvement of practice.
Background. A brief introduction should be articulated, also provided with ample background information/literature to explain the research issue being discussed.
Problem/Purpose. The purpose of the paper should be clearly and unambiguously stated even more consistently depend upon a clearly portrayed research issue.
Literature Review. Research and scholarship should be linked to relevant empirical and theoretical literature. The applicability of the research and the quality of the discussion are more important than the length of the literature review.
Methodology. Methods and procedures should be relevant for responding the stated research issue(s) and purpose(s).
Findings and discussion. Findings and discussion must be presented and documented to show clear relationships to the purpose(s) and research question(s). Evidence needed to support conclusions must be clearly identified and amply arrayed, including (but not limited to) the presentation of statistics, charts, and graphs; use of quotations; observational data; references; and citations.
Conclusions. Conclusions and logical inferences should be pertinent, clearly drawn, and convincingly supported by evidence.
References. All references must be in alphabetical order.
Readability: All manuscripts must be well-organized, well-written, and readable.
In addition to meeting other requirements for submitting a manuscript, the reviewers will follow the guidelines to decide whether to take submission forward.
Question 1: What is best done in the manuscript?
Question 2: What needs to be improved most?
Question 3: Does the manuscript's content fit the aims and scope of the Journal?
Question 4: Does it contribute new knowledge to the discipline?
Question 5: Is the thesis and/or purpose of the manuscript clearly stated early on?
Question 6: Is there a logical focus and flow on the main idea throughout the draft?
Question 7: Does the work build on a review of relevant literature?
Question 8: Do the evidence and arguments sufficiently support or explore the key issue?
Question 9: Does the manuscript follow APA citation guidelines?
Question 10: If you have any additional comments, please add them here.
Along with this, a seperate manuscript review form will be sent to the reviewers.