Focus and Scope

This journal offers a place for sharing reports of action research, in which teachers at all levels, kindergarten to postgraduate, are reflecting on classroom practice through research ventures. It also provides space for discussion of other ways in which educational practitioners, alone or in collaboration, use inquiry as a tool to learn more about their work with the hope eventually of improving its effectiveness. We do not envisage a journal in which the contributions will necessarily be reports on studies that have already been completed; there is much to be said for reports of work in progress that can open up areas of discussion and interchange of experiences and ideas that will benefit all involved.

Contributions to be considered for publication in the journal should be submitted through our journal management system.

 

Section Policies

Editorial Introduction

Editors
  • OJS Administrative Account
  • Catherine Compton-Lilly, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Full Articles

Editors
  • OJS Administrative Account
  • Catherine Compton-Lilly, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Short Articles

Editors
  • OJS Administrative Account
  • Catherine Compton-Lilly, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

Editors
  • OJS Administrative Account
  • Catherine Compton-Lilly, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Resources

Editors
  • OJS Administrative Account
  • Catherine Compton-Lilly, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Notes

Editors
  • Catherine Compton-Lilly, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

When Networks receives an article, the author will be notified via email that the submission has been received. The Editor will review the submission to determine if the manuscript fits the Aim and Scope of Networks.

If the manuscript is appropriate for Networks, it will be sent out for peer review by at least two experts and/or practitioners in the field.

Reviewers are asked to complete the review within four weeks.

Reviewers will need to provide feedback to the author and the editor.

The goal is to provide constructive feedback that will help the author(s) improve the quality of the work. Networks expects reviewers to use professional language when providing comments. Reviewers should use the following criteria in providing their feedback and determining a recommendation:

*Focus on the aim and scope of Networks
*Clarity and readability of the manuscript
*Adequate literature review to understand the study/project
*Soundness of study design
*Relevant evidence in results
* Trustworthiness of the conclusion
*Focus on practitioner learning from research or project in

In making a decision on the manuscript, reviewers will select from the following recommendations:

*Accept Submission – the submission is of high quality and relevant to Networks and needs only editing revisions

* Revisions Required – the submission fits the aim and scope of Networks and would be acceptable for publication with some minor revisions that are outline in reviewer’s comments.

*Resubmit for Review – the submission fits the aim and scope of Networks and has the potential to be publishable. But there are significant revisions that need to be completed. Resubmission would require another round of reviews and does not guarantee publication.

*Resubmit Elsewhere – the submission doesn’t fit the aim and scope of Networks.

*Decline Submission – the submission has significant flaws that could not be addressed through revisions.

When submitting feedback, the reviewer will need to provide feedback for the author AND for the editor. The feedback to the author goes to the Editor and will be compiled with other reviewer’s feedback. If there is a lack of consensus among the peer reviewers, the Editor may send it out for another review or make a final decision based on the compiled feedback. The Editor will then convey the decision and reviewers’ complied feedback to the author.

If a reviewer would like to provide revision comments/edits on the document, the reviewer can download the document and then upload when completed. However, please ensure that the reviewer’s name is removed from the document’s Properties. If the reviewer provides the document file, the Editor will provide the author access to the file.

 

Past Editors

Catherine F. Compton-Lilly, Professor in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Gordon Wells
Formerly Professor of Education at OISE/UT; currently Professor Emeritus at the University of California at Santa Cruz