Learning and Teaching in Action

Guidance for Reviewers

In the first instance we would like you to look at the article(s) and the author criteria (listed below) and make a judgement according to one of the following:

  • Publication recommended
  • Publication recommended with minor revisions
  • Publication recommended with major revisions
  • Publication not recommended

Publication recommended

The article largely meets with the author criteria specifications as listed in Instructions for Authors. Significantly, the article is innovative and relevant to LTiA. The content is sound and needs no revisions. All the claims are supported and the information presented is clear. The text contains only minor typos that can be dealt with through the proof reading process.

Publication recommended with minor revisions

The article meets with many of the author criteria specifications as listed in Instructions for Authors. The article is innovative and relevant to LTiA. However, there are some minor issues with the content – perhaps claims are not supported or areas lack clarity. There may also be minor issues with the structure, grammar or spelling which go beyond what can be reasonably be expected to be dealt with through the proof reading process.

Publication recommended with major revisions

The article meets with some of the criteria listed in Instructions for Authors.The article is relevant to LTiA. However, there are some issues with the content – perhaps claims are not supported or areas lack clarity. There may also be significant shortcomings in structure, grammar or spelling which go beyond what we might reasonably expect to be dealt with through the proof reading process.

Publication not recommended

The article fails to meet with many of the criteria listed in Instructions for Authors.. In particular, the article is not relevant or innovative to LTiA and is therefore not suitable for inclusion.

Further Information

Reviewers are asked to track changes on the document in order to clearly indicate where changes need to be made. Reviewers should be aware that these comments will go back to the author.Where appropriate, you are encouraged to liaise with the author to clarify your review and to provide supplementary guidance which will support the author’s efforts to produce publishable work.
In all cases, therefore, your review should be couched in the form of constructive critique: identify the strengths of the work, and where elements of it are not yet suitable for publication, aim to offer advice as to how these elements may be improved.

Where articles are approved subject to revisions, the revisions will be sent back to the reviewer for confirmation that appropriate comments have been addressed.

Reviewers should note that all approved articles will be proof read by a member of the LTiA Editorial board, in order to correct grammatical errors, spelling errors and other typos. However, if you wish to highlight these aspects when reading the article please feel free to do so.

The deadline for reviewing articles is 2 weeks from the date received. If you are unable to review any articles in the above timescales please let us know as soon as possible so we can reassign reviewing for that edition.

See our instructions for authors