For reviewers
What is peer review and what does it mean to be a reviewer for Education & Democracy?
Peer review is a process used by scientific journals to ensure the quality, credibility and relevance of research and scientific articles within the research field. The idea is that constructive criticism from experts will contribute to high quality in the research field.
Education & Democracy generally uses two external reviewers for each article or essay based on a so-called triple-blind peer review. As a reviewer, you are anonymous to the writer, as the writer is to you. The editorial team will know who the reviewer is, but only the editorial coordinator will know who the author of the article or essay is.
Before accepting to review an article manuscript or an essay, please be aware that the abstract, the manuscript and the correspondence with the editorial office are confidential material that may not be disseminated or otherwise communicated to third parties.
If you advise against publication, you should justify this, for example by pointing out the scientific shortcomings that you find in the contribution. A reviewer may have a different opinion or view than the author, but this does not mean that the text can be questioned other than from a scientific point of view on the text's own terms.
If you find that the article or essay is feasible/worth publishing after some editing, we would be grateful if you could provide examples of the editing that you think needs to be done. Positive criticism can also be included in the review.
To recognise our reviewers and show our gratitude, we regularly publish the names of our reviewers in the journal. Being a reviewer is also a good opportunity to build a relationship with and orientate yourself in the research fields addressed by the journal.
Assessment criteria for articles
The following criteria apply to the assessment of articles:
1. Focus and originality
That you find the content and topic of the article to be interesting in relation to the focus and readership of Education & Democracy. If not, do you have a suggestion for an alternative journal that would be more suitable? By originality, we mean that the article contains a new contribution that is related to previous research in the field. This means, for instance, that the article should not be report-like in nature or a summary of an already published thesis.
2. Theoretical and methodological foundation
That there is a clear problem with a sufficient scientific basis, and that the author develops the scientific reasoning in a way that advances the article as an answer to the question: Does the text have a clear problem, is it theoretically grounded and does it have a methodological connection?
3. Presentation and rigour
That the article is well structured and well written.
Please send your review to uod.red@oru.se in a separate document with headings corresponding to the three assessment areas above and make a summary judgement to the editors whether the text needs major or minor revisions, acceptance or rejection.
Assessment criteria for essays
The following criteria apply to the assessment of essays:
1. Focus and originality
The focus of the text will be judged as interesting in terms of content in relation to the journal's readership. If this criterion is not met, please suggest an alternative journal that would be more appropriate for the text. By originality, we mean that the essay makes a contribution that offers new perspectives and approaches to a current or recurring educational issue.
2. Theoretical and methodological underpinning
The text has a clear problem statement with a scientific, social, political or philosophical basis relevant to the topic of the essay, which enables the writer to develop their reasoning on the problem. The argument must be characterised by both content and linguistic rigour and coherence. Underpinning the essay also means that references and sources are used and that the essay includes a reference list.
3. Presentation
The text is well written and has a form that demonstrates concern for both language and content. This means, among other things, that the text is stylistically coherent.
Please send your review to uod.red@oru.se in a separate document with headings corresponding to the three assessment areas above and make a summary judgement to the editors as to whether the text needs major or minor revisions, acceptance or rejection.
