 National Job Bank Job listings for Extension, outreach, research, and higher education positions. |
For Authors
The Review Process
Editorial Review
JOE employs a two-tiered review system. That is, the editor first reviews each submission to determine whether or not it is suitable to be sent out to the peer reviewers on the JOE Manuscript Review Committee.
If the submission is not suitable for review, the editor either rejects the submission or returns the submission to the author with (often substantive) revision suggestions. (See the April 2001 "Editor's Page" for some of the things the editor looks for.)
Peer Reviewers
The Journal of Extension (JOE) is a refereed publication. A Manuscript Review committee composed of Extension professionals with backgrounds in a variety of subject areas and from different parts of the country serve on the committee. Reviewers are appointed for two-year terms by the editor, with the concurrence of the JOE's Board of Directors and the candidate's state Extension Director/Administrator. A list of current Manuscript Review Committee members can be found in each issue of JOE. Instructions for retrieving that listing are given in each issue's Table of Contents.
Peer Review Process
JOE uses a blind review process. That is, all references to the author(s) are removed before the manuscript is sent out to reviewers.
A set of criteria is used by reviewers to evaluate manuscripts submitted to the JOE. Reviewers are asked to assign a numerical rating from 1 (weak) to 10 (strong) for each criterion and provide comments on a rating sheet and/or on the manuscript itself. This process is handled through e-mail, unless the reviewer wishes to write on the manuscript and return a hardcopy to the editor.
Feature and Research in Brief manuscripts are reviewed by three committee members. Ideas at Work manuscripts are reviewed by one committee member. Tools of the Trade and Commentary manuscripts are reviewed by the editor.
Reviewers are asked to make a disposition on each manuscript they review and submit it to the editor. They can recommend:
- Accepted for publication
- Accepted for publication contingent on minor revision
- Major revision and resubmission required
- Rejected for publication
The editor weighs the reviewers' comments and recommended disposition for each manuscript in making the final publication decision. When authors are asked to revise and resubmit manuscripts, the revision may be sent for another round of reviews by the Manuscript Review Committee members or reviewed by the editor. That decision is made at the discretion of the editor.
The two tiers in the JOE review system add up to a unique combination
of
academic rigor and professional development. JOE both "keeps
the bar
high" and helps authors get published.
Criteria for Evaluation
Criteria vary somewhat depending upon the review category (Feature, Research in Brief, etc.). The criteria for each category are listed below.
Feature Article
| Content Criteria |
|---|
| Contribution: Expands or updates Extension research and knowledge
base. Important enough to give space in JOE.
Audience: Of broad interest to Extension educators in general. Usefulness: Helps Extension educators improve their effectiveness. Specifically suggests applications. Rigor: Based on valid and reliable information, documentation or sound concepts; content is empirically, logically and/or theoretically supported. Clear Focus: Central ideas, findings and conclusions control the article. Has a clear main point. |
| Readability Criteria |
| Interest: Captures and holds readers' attention.
Understandable: Uses easy-to-understand language and flows smoothly. Development: Appropriately sequences and constructs paragraphs and sentences to support the central idea and conclusions. Mechanics: Uses acceptable standards of spelling and grammar. |
Research in Brief
| Content Criteria |
|---|
| Audience: Of interest to Extension educators.
Importance: Important enough to give space in JOE. Research uses unique methods and/or produces interesting or unusual findings. Methods: Offers a clear statement of the research problem and methods used. Rigor: Based on valid and reliable information, documentation or sound concepts; content is empirically, logically and/or theoretically supported. Findings: Describes the research findings with emphasis on their implications. Usefulness: Indicates the usefulness of the methods or findings to Extension educators. |
| Readability Criteria |
| Interest: Captures and holds readers' attention.
Understandable: Uses easy-to-understand language and flows smoothly. Development: Appropriately sequences and constructs paragraphs and sentences to support the central idea and conclusions. Mechanics: Uses acceptable standards of spelling and grammar. |
Ideas at Work
| Content Criteria |
|---|
| Importance: Important enough to give space in JOE. Something
that Extension professionals need to know or would want to know.
Innovative: Describes something not already widely known or done. New enough to be considered innovative in some way. Audience: Of interest to Extension educators involved in programming. Usefulness: Provides suggestions for practical applications. Repeatability: Provides information or resources so that program or idea can be repeated or adapted. Clear Focus: Clearly describes one idea. |
| Readability Criteria |
| Interest: Captures and holds readers' attention.
Understandable: Uses easy-to-understand language and flows smoothly. Development: Appropriately sequences and constructs paragraphs and sentences to support the central idea and conclusions. Mechanics: Uses acceptable standards of spelling and grammar. |
Tools of the Trade
Tools of the Trade articles report on specific techniques, materials, books and technologies that can be useful to Extension educators. They are reviewed by the editor for appropriateness and relevance for the Journal of Extension, and for readability according to the criteria applied to other articles.
Commentary
Commentary articles state an opinion, offer a challenge, or present a thought-provoking idea on an issue of concern to Extension, including a published article in JOE . They are reviewed by the editor for appropriateness and relevance for the Journal of Extension, and for readability according to the criteria applied to other articles.
(Updated February 2004)
This document is online at http://www.joe.org/rev1.html