Introduction

 Routes: The Journal For Student Geographers Article Acceptance Criteria and Peer Reviewer Feedback Form TOC \h \u \z Introduction1The purpose of peer review1What makes a great submission to Routes?2Peer reviewers’ feedback options3Instructions for peer reviewers3Appendix: Peer reviewer feedback form41) Quality of submission42) Formatting, style and organisation8Introduction Routes seeks to provide geography students in Year 12 and 13, through to final year undergraduates, with a space to publish their work. This is a pioneering initiative that seeks to bridge the divide between school and university geography. We recognise that there will be breadth and variation in the extent to which individual submissions meet the criteria set out below depending on the author’s context and support available. Routes seeks to support each author to, where necessary, improve their submission so that it can be published. We want to encourage students from all backgrounds to contribute to Routes, and to benefit from the experience of academic writing and publishing.Peer review for Routes is undertaken as a ‘double blind review’ as both the author(s) and reviewers remain anonymous. Each submission will be independently considered by two reviewers as well as the nominated editor.The purpose of peer reviewThe process of peer review should provide the opportunity for dialogue between author, reviewer, and editor and, this should be as positive and constructive as possible. The peer review process should be considered within the broader aims of Routes, which are:To provide student geographers with a place to publish work that is original, thoughtful, and creativeTo give students a positive experience of academic writing and publishing To support and enable as many submissions through to a positive outcomeTo establish a network of geographers that support student geographical research and writing, that includes students and staff in schools, universities and beyondTo showcase the breadth and diversity of contemporary geographical scholarship To bridge the gap between scholarship in secondary and higher education To encourage submissions from different types of schools and higher education providers across the UKTo showcase submissions in a variety of formats including, videos, essays, photographs and sound recording. To act as a mark of distinction for quality work in geographyTo develop students’ skills in scholarly writingWhat makes a great submission to Routes?Routes welcomes submissions in a range of formats which might include:EssaysResearch reports or articlesAcademic postersCommentaries or perspective piecesPoetryPhoto essaysBook reviewsWhen considering a submission, the questions in the table below should be considered. Not every submission will need to incorporate each aspect and editors and peer reviewers should use their professional judgement to assess which aspects of the criteria are most pertinent. For example, aspects focused on analysis and critical thinking are more likely to be appropriate for an essay or research report whereas creativity might be more relevant to consider when reviewing a submission of poetry. We expect that for each type of submission there should be evidence that the work speaks to key ideas of relevance to geography and illustrates originality, style and flair. All work should be scholarly in that it should be formatted and referenced appropriately. There is no need for an author to include a copious list of references if the ideas they are drawing on are their own, but accurate reference to literature would be expected if they are drawing on others’ ideas or situating their ideas in the broader field of literature. This may mean peer reviewers and editors need to help signpost students to appropriate, publicly accessible materials such as Google Books, an open source article or textbook. We anticipate that submissions from undergraduate students are more likely to meet a great number of the criteria set out below than those authored by sixth form students. However, we encourage peer reviewers and editors to use their professional judgements as to how best to support the author to improve their submission, irrespective of their age or stage of education. The overarching aim is to provide authors with a positive experience of the peer-review and publication process that enables them to improve and extend their work. Peer reviewers’ feedback options1) Accepted- no changes to be made- accepted as is.2) Accepted with corrections- most submissions will fall into this category. Peer reviewers should specify the corrections to be made in order that the article can be accepted.3) Request resubmission-. This should be reserved for pieces where a significant amount of reworking would be necessary so that the submission is substantially altered and therefore could be seen to be a new submission. This is reworking that would typically take a student longer than the two-month period for revisions associated with ‘accept with corrections’ finding.4) Rejected – It is expected that an outright rejection will be rare and this should be reserved for pieces where there is significant, intentional plagiarism and where, in the reviewers’ and Editor’s opinion, the author has not engaged with the ethos of the journal (e.g. it is clear the student is not looking for feedback, or examples of unkind/ unethical writing that is deliberately crafted to cause offense/ agitate). Instructions for peer reviewersPlease complete your comments using this form. Return the form to the Editor who contacted you. When you have completed the review, please delete the submission from your computer. Your feedback will be read by the author of the submission. If you have any questions about this form, please contact the editor that sent you this work in the first instance and they will be able to assist you further. Thank you for sharing your expertise and giving of your time to support Routes, it is highly appreciated.Appendix: Peer reviewer feedback formSubmission Code(this is the Code beginning with R in the file name)Peer reviewers are to attach this form and return it to the appropriate editor.Where appropriate, please provide a brief statement that illustrates how the article has met/ not met the criterion and suggest how they might improve their work in this regard. You might want to focus your feedback on particular areas that you think will be especially helpful to the author. 1) Quality of submissionFor any submission to be accepted, it needs to show evidence of the following essential criteriaIs the submission fundamentally geographical in nature?Does the submission draw on one or more of the key concepts in Geography? For example:PlaceSpaceScaleInterdependencePhysical and human processes Environmental interaction and sustainable developmentCultural understanding and diversity Geographical enquiryIt is acceptable for these to be implicit in the work. NB If the article is not geographical in nature, for example an author has submitted an essay with a physics focus, please provide the author with alternative suggestions as where they could submit this work. If appropriate, please offer some general constructive feedback to improve the work e.g. referencing, structure. In addition, for any submission to be accepted, it needs to show evidence of at least one of the following criteria Evidence of these criteria might be found throughout the submission or in a particular section.Peer reviewers should write a brief statement/bullet points commenting on:aspects of the submission that show evidence of meeting one or more of the criteria;and offering constructive suggestions for how the author might improve their work in one or more of the below areas that are most pertinent. If any of the following criteria are not appropriate for the submitted work, e.g. creativity might not be appropriate for a research report, please leave this blank.Is there evidence of originality of thought?Does the author offer a new perspective/ synthesis on a geographical idea or theme?Does the author offer a thoughtful opinion or new insights?Does the author present new data/findings?Book reviews only: Is it clear that the author has read the book and offers a new perspective/ synthesis on the content? Does the author offer a thoughtful opinion or new insights into the book?Does the author offer applications for the knowledge or the perspective of the book?Does the submission include creativity?Elements of creativity might include:InnovationEmpathyImaginationOriginalityDoes the submission follow the conventions of its type?Is the writing style appropriate for the submission type?Is the submission carefully organised and structured?Does the author achieve balance between the different sections in the context of the whole?Is the submission within the word limit?Book reviews only:Does the author achieve balance between objective information about the book and subjective information based on their opinion?Is the submission completely free of plagiarism?Does the submission reference literature appropriately?Are all sources acknowledged appropriately?Book reviews only:Is it clear that the author has not plagiarised from the book whilst reviewing? Does the submission include criticality and analysis?Is there evidence of clear reasoning and argument?Does the author compare and contrast different sources/ideas/arguments?Are the claims made supported by evidence?Is the data presented appropriately?Does the author discuss cause and effects?Does the submission offer perceptive conclusions?Book reviews only:Does the author consider this book within the wider literature? Does the author analyse the book as a whole- rather than discrete sections of the book?Does the author compare and contrast the book to others? Does the author consider how others reading the book may have a different perspective? Does the book review provide perceptive conclusions?Are there examples of the author’s evaluative thinking?Does the author discuss strengths and weaknesses?Does the author bring together different ideas and form a judgement?Does the author comment on the implications of their thinking/work?Does the author suggest any limitations of their approach?Does the author highlight future directions/next steps?Book reviews only:Does the author bring together different thoughts and form a judgement on the book?Does the author comment on the implications of the thinking / perspective of this book? Does the author suggest any limitations of the text? Does the author highlight future directions/next steps for learning more about the topic area?2) Formatting, style and organisation The following checklist is most appropriate for use with submissions of essays/ research reports/ reviews. If the submission falls outside of these standard conventions (e.g. a poem), peer reviewers should use the sections of this form that are appropriate in their professional judgement. TitleComment and suggestion for improvement, if appropriateDoes it clearly describe and summarise the content of the research? Is the title an appropriate length?AbstractIs it really a summary of the research and is it an appropriate length?Does the abstract include the key findings?Does the abstract avoid using technical terms, abbreviations and references?IntroductionIs the introduction clearly organised?Are the research aims and objectives clearly set out?Does the author explain the significance of the research within the wider field? Background/ Wider context (this may be an extension of the introduction and should be structured as best suits each individual submission)Does the author discuss other studies relevant to this research? Does the author clearly and concisely explain how the current research builds upon previous research? Is this previous research referenced appropriately and accurately?What contribution does this current research make to the field?MethodsIs the research design suitable for answering the question(s) posed?Does the article explain why the chosen methods have been selected? If method employs a standard equation, check that this is correct.Does the article make it clear what type of data was collected and how it was collected?Are there any issues with ethics/ consent that have not been explained and/or sufficiently dealt with?Results Is this section clearly laid out and in a logical sequence?Are there any improvements to be made in the way the data is presented?Is the use of figures and/ or tables appropriate?Has the appropriate analysis been conducted?Check a sample of calculations where possible/appropriate.Has interpretation been included in this section? (In most cases, interpretation should not be included here)Discussion Are the claims in this section supported by results?Do the claims seem reasonable?Has the author indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research?Does the article support or contradict previous theories?Conclusion Does the author draw the research into concise, precise statements?Are the conclusions drawn important and valid and justified?Are areas of further research identified?Figures/ ReferencesDo the figures have axis titles/units of measurement? Are the figures presented in a consistent way (e.g. are the bars in charts the same width? Are the scales on the axes logical?)? Is text size legible?Is colour used in figures and tables in an appropriate and consistent way?Do the figures and tables inform the reader?Do the figures accurately describe the data?Are footnotes/ references used in a consistent way?Are the sources of all images acknowledged appropriately?NB Check for colour blindness combinations (see guidance)Overall comments to student on main positives of the submission and summary of areas to work on Overall judgement: 1) Accept/ 2) Accept with corrections outlined above 3) Request resubmission 4) Reject ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download