Journal of School Counseling

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

 

JSC Home

Articles

Editorial Board

Guidelines for Authors

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewer
Forms
(PDF)

____________

Quantitative
Studies

Qualitative
Studies

Position
Papers

Innovations

____________

Review
Guidelines
and all forms
listed above

 

 

Manuscripts are reviewed on two levels: General and Specific.

 

General Review

  • General review involves your written feedback to the authors. We have provided a sampling of questions for you to consider as you review the manuscript. These questions are only meant to guide your review: You do not need to answer all of the questions for each manuscript.

  • The bolded headings represent sections or themes present in most manuscripts and should be considered (although may not require your comments or suggestions) during your review.

  • The General review guideline includes sections/themes for All Manuscripts and some additional sections/themes for Data-Based Manuscripts.

  • If you receive a Position Paper or Innovations manuscript, you need only provide feedback related to the sections outlined in the All Manuscripts guideline.

  • If you receive a Qualitative or Quantitative manuscript, please include feedback related to the All Manuscripts and Data-Based Manuscripts sections.

Specific Review

  • Specific review involves your evaluation (acceptable, unacceptable, or uncertain) of numerous aspects of the manuscript. Please check all boxes on the form.

  • We have provided you with a form that is appropriate for the type of manuscript being reviewed.

  • At the bottom of each form is the Disposition section where you inform us regarding your conclusions about the acceptability of the manuscript for publication.

In the body of the manuscript, please make editorial suggestions using either a Yellow highlighting feature found in Microsoft Word and Corel WordPerfect, or bold font (preferably a larger size than that used by the author). This will allow us to email your suggestions directly back to the author.

When you complete your review please return to us:

  1. The manuscript with your editorial comments/suggestions

  2. Your General Review – written feedback

  3. Your Specific Review – form check sheet

We look forward to providing a useful and professional publication for school counselors and we appreciate your contribution to this effort. If you have any questions, please contact us.

Mark D. Nelson, Ed.D., Co-editor

Dawn Tarabochia, Ph.D., Co-editor

markn@montana.edu

dawn.tarabochia@montana.edu

 

General Review

 

All Manuscripts

 

Presentation

Does the paper relate a cohesive argument?

Are the ideas clearly presented?

 

Writing

Does the title characterize the manuscript?

Is the writing concise and easy to follow?

Is paper written in APA style?

 

Length

What portions of the paper should be expanded? Removed? Condensed? Summarized? Combined?

 

Abstract and Introduction

Do the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the points made in the paper?

 

Literature Review

Is the literature review comprehensive?

Does the literature review contain a coherent argument supported by literature (as opposed to a list of studies)?

 

Practical Implications/Limitations

Does the author describe implications for school counselors?

Does the author describe limitations of the research or drawbacks tothe method or position described?

 

Directions for Future Research

Does the author describe further need/areas for research or expansion of ideas?

 

Disposition

 

Accept

Publish this manuscript in its present form (i.e., no revisions necessary).

 

Accept with revisions

This indicates that the paper will be accepted for publication provided the recommended revisions are made. State whether the revisions are minor or major in scope. Revisions should not significantly change the methodology or content of the paper. Papers in this category normally require:

  • Minor revisions throughout the manuscript

  • Easily correctable flaws in an otherwise appropriate analysis

  • Basic or minor changes to concepts

  • Reorganization of content to improve readability, expansion of citations

In this category, you may include a section entitled Required Changes; which outlines changes that are essential for the revised paper to be accepted. You may also choose to include a section entitled Issues for your Consideration; which outlines areas that could be improved but are not essential for publication.

 

Do not accept, but resubmission is encouraged

The material may be worthy of publication in the journal following substantial revision. The needed revisions are extensive enough to warrant resubmission as a new paper.

 

Do not accept, resubmission is discouraged

The material is not suitable for publication in the journal. Papers are often rejected for reasons such as:

  • Serious flaws in experimental design

  • Incorrect interpretation of data

  • Inadequate data

  • Inappropriateness for journal

  • Lack of originality

  • Treatment of an unimportant or trivial problem

  • Inadequate or inappropriate citations.

If it is more suitable for publication in another journal, please state the name of the journal.

Data-Based Manuscripts

 

Methods for studies involving primary data collection

Does the author provide enough detail of the methodology?

Are the methods described clearly enough to facilitate replication (where applicable)?

Is there a sound research methodology?

Are the methods appropriate?

 

Rationale & Research Question

Is there sufficient rationale for the study?

Is the question under study clearly identified?

 

Data presentation

Could the design be conveyed more easily?

Are the data clearly presented?

Can the reported results be verified easily by reference to tables and/or figures?

Would another form of presentation help?

Are illustrations instructive?

Are all tables and figures clearly labeled, necessary, and well-planned?

 

Analysis and Interpretation

Are the analyses appropriate, logical, and described in enough detail?

Does the organization of results promote understanding?

 

Discussion

Are the discussion and conclusions made by the author supported by the data?

Does the writer understand the limitations of the study?

Is there enough breadth and depth in the implications of the study?