Reviewer Process and Guidelines

LUMAT Review Process

LUMAT uses single-blind review process. This means that authors are visible and reviewers anonymous. LUMAT has a following peer review process:

1. First, it is important to realise that editor is the key agent in scientific evaluation process (see Schultz, 2009).  When a new manuscript is submitted, first the editor (Editor-in-Chief, section editors or guest editors for special issues) reads it through. Guest editors are selected by the Editor-in-Chief who consults the editorial board in finding new editorial talents.

The editor will desk reject all poor manuscripts before peer review because peer reviewers are hard to find. It is important to respect the time and effort of voluntary reviewers by sending only good papers to peer review stage. If there are minor issues with the manuscript, editor will ask revisions before the peer review.

2. Next, the manuscript is submitted to peer evaluation where at least two external reviewers are recruited to serve as peer reviewers. Peer reviewers are established scholars from the research field. For more details, see the annual lists of LUMAT reviewers.  Peer reviewers write evaluation reports using the criteria described below. The reports are examined by the responsible editor, who  will explain the revision needs for authors and ask minor/major revisions or rejects/accepts the manuscript. Usually manuscripts need two revisions rounds.

3. Last, the final decision is made by the editor. In General Issue the decision maker is Editor-in-Chief, and in special issues guest and section editors. Guest and section editors consult the Editor-in-Chief if needed. The desicion is submitted to authors via LUMAT system and reviewers are informed as BCC recipients.

Literature: Schultz, D. (2009). Eloquent Science: A Practical Guide to Becoming a Better Writer, Speaker, and Atmospheric Scientist. American Meteorological Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-935704-03-4

LUMAT Evaluation Criteria

Rationale for study

  • The rationale is current and focuses on scholarship most important to justifying the study.
  • The rationale establishes a link between the study and previous research.
  • The rationale provides a strong justification for the importance of the study.

Problems, questions or hypotheses

  • There are one or more explicit problems, questions, or hypotheses.
  • Problems, questions or hypotheses are important to science, mathematics or technology teaching and learning.
  • The problems, questions, or hypotheses link to the rationale.

Methodology

  • The methodology is appropriate for the problems, questions, or hypotheses.
  • The methodology is appropriate for the type of study (e.g., ethnographic, philosophical).
  • The methodology is reported thoroughly but concisely.
  • Samples and sampling procedures are clearly described.
  • Data sources are clearly described.
  • Instrumentation includes reliability and validity.
  • Manuscript includes information on the tools of data gathering, e.g. interview methods, mind maps, observation methods.

Results

  • Data tables, figures, and pictures are complete, easy to read and add significantly to the understanding of the study.
  • Quotations are documented and support assertions or warrants.
  • Data address the problems, questions, or hypotheses.

Discussion/Conclusions

  • The conclusions are supported by the data.
  • The conclusions address the problems, questions, or hypotheses.
  • The conclusions make a convincing argument for the importance/significance of the study for science, mathematics or technology teaching and learning.

Style and expression

  • The manuscript includes an abstract.
  • The title conveys the nature of the study.
  • The manuscript follows the instructed style.
  • The manuscript is clear, concise and easy to read.

Reviewer recommendations

Along with your comments on the review and answers to the editor’s questions, the report should contain a recommendation to the editor. Your options may include:

Accept submission: The manuscript would be suitable for publication in its current form (after copy-editing and proofreading).

Revisions required: The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s) have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where appropriate. These changes could include referencing another work or a rewrite of a few sections.

Resubmit for review: The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s) have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where necessary. These changes could include redoing experiments or a substantial rewrite of several sections.

Resubmit elsewhere: The manuscript is not suitable for the journal it was submitted to, but the content is good and could be suitable for a different journal.

Decline submission: The manuscript is not suitable and it should not be considered further.