- NARST Committee Information
- JRST Information
Rubrics for Decision Recommendations
Reviewers often wonder how to "calibrate" their sense for what constitutes an "Accept with Major Revisions" vs. a "Revise & Resubmit". The following are provided as guidance as you compose your reviews. The associate editor and editors assigned to the manuscript will also provide feedback after the decision to help you improve your judgment in reviewing.
Accept: The manuscript makes a substantial contribution to field of science education. The authors provide a strong rationale for the importance of the problem or issue under examination. The methodology is appropriate for addressing the questions or issue. By “substantial contribution” we mean: 1) the findings of the manuscript provide insight into a critical existing science education problem or practice; 2) manuscript provides new ways of examining how to study problems and questions in the field, or 3) the manuscripts helps us think about critical issues in the field.
Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript makes a substantial contribution to the field of science education, but one or more aspects of the manuscript need minor clarification. For instance, minor clarification of the methodology might be necessary.
Accept with major revisions: The manuscript makes a substantial contribution to field of science education, but one or more aspects of the manuscript need improvement. For instance, the data analysis section needs further clarification to show how the findings follow from the data. One common omission in submitted manuscripts is that authors fail to elucidate what the major contributions of the manuscript are to the field. Even with the need for improvement there is no doubt that the manuscript warrants publication in JRST.
Revise & Resubmit: The manuscript has the potential to make a substantial contribution to the field of science education, but as written the manuscript has too many weakness to allow you to make a decision. For instance, the authors may not have provided an appropriate rationale for the study or the methodology is poorly explained. The manuscript requires a substantive revision and then a re-evaluation for publication.
Reject: The manuscript has limited potential to make a substantial contribution to science education because there are too many weakness in the manuscript, one or more weaknesses that can not be improved, or the manuscript does not provide new insights to field. Rejections generally fall into two groups; manuscripts with particular weaknesses in the study or presentation, and manuscripts where the study may be strong but the work does not substantially advance the field.