March 2014
School-University Partnerships
The Journal of the National Association for Professional Development Schools
Kristien Zenkov,Professor, George Mason University, (Senior Editor),Alicia Bruyning, PhD Student,
George Mason University, (Editor), Ellen Clark, PhD Student, George Mason University, (Editor),
Nisreen Daoud, PhD Student, George Mason University, (Editor), Audra Parker, Associate Professor, George Mason
University, (Editor), Seth Parsons, Associate Professor, George Mason University, (Editor)
Reviewers/Associate Editors: Submit all reviews VIA EMAIL to the editor/associate editor with whom you are working
and to supjournal@gmail.com
Manuscript Number:
Editors:
Title:
Associate Editors:
Reviewers:
Review Due Date:
Submit Completed
Reviews to:
Reviewer Evaluation Rubric
*Please check one number under each of the following eight categories
5
Appropriateness to the NAPDS membership
(5 = highly appropriate; 1 = inappropriate)
4
3
2
1
Reflects collaboration between school-/district-based educators and university-/college-based educators
(5 = significant evidence of collaboration; 1 = no evidence of collaboration)
5
4
3
2
1
Significance of Topic to the Professional Development Schools movement
(5 = high significance to PDS; 1 = insignificant)
5
4
3
2
1
Topic, report, findings are of interest to school-/district-based AND university-/college-based educators
(5 = high interest to both sets of constituents; 1 = low interest to either or both sets of constituents)
5
4
3
2
1
Clear details of research question, action, and results OR of PDS practice, models or structures
(5 = very clear details; 1 = unclear details)
5
4
3
2
1
5
Valid Conclusions
(5 = valid conclusions; 1 = invalid conclusions)
4
3
2
1
Advancement of Knowledge
(5 = submission represents significant advancement; 1 = submission represents insignificant advancement)
5
4
3
2
1
Clear, Coherent, and Well-Written Manuscript
(5 = very clear, coherent, and well-written; 1 = unclear, incoherent, weakly-written)
5
4
3
2
1
March 2014
SCHOOL-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
Reviewer Guidelines
While we appreciate reviewers’ use of the “track changes” tool and making comments in
Microsoft Word documents, we prefer that reviewers instead use our approved reviewer
guidelines when preparing their manuscript reviews.
General Guidelines for Providing Feedback (for Peer Reviewers)
Feedback to the Author
Please consider the following when providing feedback to authors:
1) Provide the author with constructive suggestions addressing how the paper may be
strengthened or revised.
2) Support general comments with specific evidence and substantiate all statements.
3) Be thorough and constructive with your comments; remember, most submissions reflect
countless hours of work on the part of the authors.
4) Direct all criticism at the paper, not the author.
5) Avoid personal comments about the author or biases about the subject matter.
Feedback to the Editors
Please consider the following when providing feedback to SUP editors:
1) Make a clear recommendation regarding the status of the paper (see 4 decisions below).
2) Provide a rationale for your decision; your rationale should outline your main reasons for
making the recommendation and be substantiated by specific evidence to support your
comments.
Structure of the Review We'd Like from You
Please consider the following when writing the final review:
1) State the purpose of the study and why/if the purpose is important. This statement allows
the editors to check their understanding of the paper against the reviewer's and that of
other reviewers; disagreement among readers may be an indication of lack of clarity, or
misunderstanding by one or more readers.
2) Clearly state your manuscript decision, using one of the four choices detailed below
(“Accept,” “Accept with Revisions,” “Revise and Resubmit,” or “Reject”)
3) Provide a rationale for your decision/ feedback for the authors; your rationale and
feedback should outline your main reasons for making the recommendation and be
substantiated by specific evidence to support your comments.
4) Provide a closing paragraph summarizing your conclusions.
March 2014
Guiding Questions for Reviewers
1) Importance and interest to the journal's readers
 What does the paper contribute to the field of education?
 Is it significant to the target community?
 Does it present a new and significant contribution to the literature?
 Is it timely and relevant?
2) Originality of the paper
 Is the study innovative? Interesting?
3) What were the author(s) trying to accomplish and were they successful?
4) Presentation
 Does the paper present a cohesive argument?
 What is the basic logic of the presentation?
 Are the ideas clearly presented?
5) Writing
 Is the writing concise and easy to follow?
 Note: You are not required to correct deficiencies of style, syntax, or grammar,
but any help you can give in clarifying meaning will be appreciated.
6) Length
 What portions of the paper should be expanded? Removed? Condensed?
Summarized? Combined?
7) Title
 Is the title informative?
8) Abstract and Introduction
 Do the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the points made in the paper?
9) Literature Review
 Are the cited articles/papers current?
 Is the literature review comprehensive?
 Does the literature review contain a coherent argument supported by literature (as
opposed to a list of studies)?
10) 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?
11) 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? Well-planned?
12) Analysis and Interpretation
 Does the organization of results promote understanding?
 Are the analyses appropriate and logical? Are they described in enough detail?
13) Discussion
 Are the discussion and conclusions made by the author supported by the data?
March 2014


Does the writer understand the limitations of their work?
Is there enough breadth and depth in the implications of their study?
Written Feedback
*Please provide detailed comments under each of the following categories
Reviewer/Associate Editor comments to be directed anonymously to the author(s) of the article; please choose three of the
above eight criteria and offer detailed feedback on at least these three criteria:
March 2014
Reviewer comments or advice about this manuscript to the Associate Editors/Editors:
March 2014
School-University Partnership Manuscript Decisions
“Accept” Submission
This decision indicates that the manuscript will be accepted for publication in its present form, with no
changes. This means that no revisions whatsoever are required before publication. This decision is rare.
“Accept with Revisions”
This decision indicates that the manuscript will be accepted for publication after recommended minor revisions
are made. Manuscripts that receive this decision WILL NOT UNDERGO ANOTHER ROUND OF PEER
REVIEW. The minor revisions suggested by the peer reviewers will not significantly change the methodology
or content of the manuscript. Manuscripts in this category normally require minor revisions or revision of easily
correctable flaws. Manuscripts that receive this decision contain NO major flaws in concept, organization,
support, or the expansion of research or citations.
“Revise and Resubmit”
This decision indicates that the manuscript, in its current form, is NOT suitable for publication. The material
could be worthy of publication in the future following substantial revision. Manuscripts that receive this
decision MUST UNDERGO ANOTHER ROUND OF PEER REVIEW. A resubmitted manuscript must go
through peer review again and there is no guarantee that that the second round of peer review will offer
automatic acceptance. Manuscripts submitted to School-University Partnerships can only undergo two rounds
of revision before a final publication decision is made.
“Reject”
This decision indicates that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal. Manuscripts 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, and/or
inadequate or inappropriate citations. If a manuscript is more suitable for publication in another journal, a peer
reviewer has the option to make this recommendation as well. This is a final decision. Manuscripts that receive
this decision WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR PUBLICATION AND WILL THEREFORE NOT
UNDERGO ANOTHER ROUND OF PEER REVIEW.
March 2014
Publication Recommendation
*Please check one of the following four recommendations
PUBLISH as is with high priority
ACCEPT with suggested modifications specified in Reviewer/Associate Editor comments above
REVISE AND RESUBMIT with suggested modifications specified in Reviewer/Associate Editor comments above
REJECT because major modifications would be necessary
*Please choose the area of the journal in which this article would be best suited:
Option One - Longer article that may include, but is not limited to, a detailed description of the purpose, relevant
school-partnership literature, data collection, findings/results, implications/discussion, and conclusion; may also
focus on in-depth explanations of partnership models.
Option Two - Shorter submission that recognizes the importance of context specific work illuminating the work of
PDS practitioners, including but not limited to a successful application of a particular scheme or idea, an account of a
particular teaching strategy or curricular initiative, the ways in which a particular problem or challenge was addressed,
other classroom/school/partnership specific initiatives, etc.
Thank you for your thoughtful review of this manuscript
—Kristien, Ron, Sarah, Suzanne, Kristen, Seth, and Martina
Reviewers/Associate Editors: Please submit all reviews VIA EMAIL
to the editor/associate editor with whom you are working and to supjournal@gmail.com