Reviewer Instructions: Research Notes

Analytics operates at the intersection of such fields as writing studies, educational measurement, massive data analysis, digital learning ecologies, and ethical philosophy. The journal is devoted to programs of research providing evidence of fair, reliable, and valid analytics. 

We have provided detailed Author Guidelines for Research Notes. Based on those guidelines, the categories below ask reviewers to make a series of analytic judgements on each section of the manuscript. After providing scores, reviewers are then asked to provide notes in which they justify and explain their assessment of the given section of the manuscript.

Reviewers should enact Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices, which The Journal of Writing Analytics and the WAC Clearinghouse endorse. Further, reviewer notes should work to enhance the writing analytics community and strengthen the research developing from this emerging field by:

1. Evaluating the manuscript rather than the manuscript’s writer. When writing your reviewer notes, consider crafting sentences that use grammatical subjects like the manuscript, the text, or the article, rather than grammatical subjects like the author, the writer, or you.
2. Balancing critique with suggestion. When offering a critique of the manuscript, please translate the critique into a suggestion for how the manuscript could be improved, taking time to explain the basis for the criticism and the rationale for the suggestion.
3. Defining key terms and using accessible language. Since the journal appeals to a multidisciplinary audience, please take extra time and extra space in your reviewer notes to establish any key constructs and foundational concepts that need additional attention in the manuscript.
4. Using local context and individual perspective to ground feedback and qualify reviewer notes. The review process should contribute to an exchange of perspective that strengthens research and knowledge-making in the writing analytics community. Help manuscript authors understand your perspective by providing context behind your notes and working to mitigate any biases.
5. Recommending supplementary research sources that build upon existing knowledge, engage a diverse body of scholarship, validate alternative ways of meaning making, and recognize alternative forms of expertise. Please support and strengthen the research base of the manuscript by pointing to ways the manuscript might more inclusively draw upon a wider range of extant work across disciplines.

 

Submission Title

 

Publishing Recommendation

Please select only one recommendation:	Publish as is	Publish with minor changes	Revise and resubmit	Reject
Please briefly explain your decision:

 

Comment Category 1: Abstract

The abstract (250 words or less) is written in accessible language, presents a structured overview of the study, and uses the following headings: aim, problem formation, methods or discussion, and directions for further action..

Very Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Very Strongly Disagree
6	5	4	3	2	1

Notes on Abstract:

 

Comment Category 2: Aim

The aim section positions the research note and explains its purpose and significance. 

Very Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Very Strongly Disagree
6	5	4	3	2	1

Notes on Aim:

 

Comment Category 3: Problem Formation

The problem formation section identifies and explains the gap that the note will discuss. 

Very Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Very Strongly Disagree
6	5	4	3	2	1

Notes on Problem Formation:

 

Comment Category 4: Methods and/or Discussion

The section describes the methods used or information collected related to the problem. This section provides justification that information collection process has identified the problem discussed in the note. 

Very Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Very Strongly Disagree
6	5	4	3	2	1

Notes on Methods and/or Discussion:

 

Comment Category 5: Directions for Further Action

The note concludes with directions for further action intended to address the identified problem or highlight any related problems also in need of additional research. All attendant qualifications to claims made are included.

Very Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Very Strongly Disagree
6	5	4	3	2	1

Notes on Further Actions:

 

Reviewer Notes

Please provide any additional integrative notes on the manuscript related to your publishing recommendation.