GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
The review of a manuscript is a vital part of the process of communicating research ideas, accomplishments, and progress in mathematics education. The reviewer is expected to make an evaluation and – if the paper is acceptable (see point 5.) – provide recommendations to ensure the scientific quality of the manuscript, including figures and tables, but not to rewrite the paper. Clear distinction should be made between errors on the part of the author and differences of opinion between author and reviewer.
The review can be based on the following main points:
- Originality
- Structure and content
- Introduction
- Previous research – theoretical framework
- Methodology
- Results
- Conclusions – discussion
- Language – clarity
- Ethical Issues
The above points can be exemplified by the following questions:
- Does the paper fit within the stated scope of the journal?
- Is the overall aim of the research clearly stated?
- Does the introduction provide sufficient background information to enable readers to better understand the problem being identified by the authors?
- Does the paper identify a gap in scientific knowledge and add new knowledge to the overall body of scientific understanding?
- Have the authors acknowledged other publications related to their topic? And is previous work and current understanding cited and represented correctly?
- Is methodology explained in sufficient detail?
- Are all figures and tables necessary, appropriate, legible, and annotated (as appropriate)?
- Are biases, limitations, and assumptions clearly stated?
- Do the conclusions follow from the evidence and do they draw upon the theoretical framework presented?
- Are alternative explanations explored as appropriate?
- Have the authors discussed implications of their research for the class room practice?
- Is information conveyed clearly enough to be understood by the typical reader?
5. Reviewer recommendations provide a consistent set of guidelines to the Editor; your review should begin with your overall recommendation: Accept as is (no changes); Minor Revisions required (no need to see the revised manuscript); Major Revisions required (need to re-evaluate the revised manuscript); Reject. All reviews are considered anonymous unless you specifically indicate in your comments to the Editor that you wish to waive your anonymity.
6. Please indicate areas in which you are satisfied with the manuscript. In cases where you find deficiencies please specify how they can be remedied, or if you believe the manuscript cannot be modified to reach the standard that Didactica Mathematicae requires for publication, state why you feel this is true.
7. The more detail you provide the better your review can assist the Editor in judging the paper’s suitability for publication, and also provide useful information to the author for improving the paper in revision. Please list the most serious concerns first, perhaps classifying them into the following groups: fatal flaws (if any), major comments, minor comments, and typographical errors. Within each group, please numerate the comments and provide specific page and/or line numbers from the manuscript.
8. If the manuscript has numerous language mistakes that inhibit the ability of a reader to understand the arguments, you may recommend rejection without writing a detailed review. Didactica Mathematicae wishes to encourage the international exchange of scientific results through its journals, but it recognizes that peer reviewers should not be required to fix manuscripts needing excessive revisions to English spelling and grammar.