Guidelines for the Reviewers

Review Criteria
In seeking to advance the understanding and practice of transformative education research and practice, JrTP strives to be inclusive in its aims and scope to stimulate a problem-oriented critical approach to research and practice in the field of transformative education. Our subscription to multiple paradigms (i.e. epistemological pluralism) is the key mantra whilst reviewing the manuscripts. Therefore, we urge the reviewers to be mindful of the nature of the research and apply corresponding quality standards in judging the merit of the submitted manuscripts. In a nutshell, the following elements are considered whilst reviewing the manuscripts submitted to JrTP:
Significance of the Problem
A problem or subject addressed by a manuscript contributes to advancing the knowledge of transformative education research and practice. The importance is enhanced when a manuscript promotes understanding or improvement of the practice.
Background
Brief introduction is articulated, and ample background information/literature to explain the research issue/problem being discussed.
Problem/Purpose
The purpose of the manuscript clearly pinpoints the gap in the literature and/or practice and/or assumptions.
Literature Review
Depending upon the nature of the manuscript, there can be varied roles of literature review, such as to spot the gap, to critique prevalent theoretical perspective (s), to show the trend in research, and to create a niche for a new method or perspective.
Methodology
Methods and procedures are relevant and transparent for addressing the stated research problem/purpose.
Findings and Discussion
Findings and discussion are geared towards addressing the ongoing debate or contributing to the development of new perspectives. Evidence needed to support the claims are shown, including (but not limited to) the presentation of statistics, charts and graphs, and/or use of quotations/vignettes/narratives, references and citations.
Conclusions and Implications
Conclusions and implications are relevant, clearly drawn, and convincingly supported by the findings and discussions.
References
All references are in alphabetical order.
Readability
The manuscript is well-organized, well-written, and readable.

Please note that the above-mentioned criteria are not necessarily the subheadings of the manuscripts. The manuscripts are organized in many possible ways depending upon various factors including the type of the manuscript and epistemology in use.

In addition to meeting the above requirements of a manuscript, the reviewers will follow these guidelines to decide whether to take the submission forward. Authors would benefit to review these questions that reviewers will be answering about their manuscript.
Question 1: What is the work about? Or, how could it (or its contribution to scholarship) be summarized in a sentence?
Question 2: What is a key strength of the manuscript? Or, what could the author build on?
Question 3: What is a weakness of the manuscript? Or, what is your major or broadest suggestion, in short?
Question 4: Does the content of the manuscript fit the aims and scope of the Journal?
Question 5: Does it contribute to new knowledge (e.g. proposes an alternative explanation, updates existing theories, purposes or tests a model)?
Question 6: Is the purpose of the manuscript clearly stated early on?
Question 7: Is there a logical flow of the main idea throughout the manuscript?
Question 8: Does the work build on a review of relevant literature? Is the review presented in proper amount and/or dispersed in proper places in the manuscript?
Question 9: Do the evidence from research and arguments by the author sufficiently explore and support key problem/issue? That is, does the author do justice to the topic with research and/or discussion?
Question 10: Does the manuscript follow APA citation guidelines?
Question 11: If you have any other comments, please add them in the sheet.
Question 12: Which of the following do you recommend?

  1. Accept (send to copyediting)
  2. Accept (with revisions specified in the manuscript)
  3. Reject (with suggestion for revise and resubmit)
  4. Reject (not fit for the journal, or other reasons)

To response the review questions, a seperate manuscript review form will be sent to the reviewers.