Imagining SoTL uses a double-blind peer-review process for all published articles, with submissions reviewed by (at least) two reviewers. Manuscript submissions from members of the Editorial Team or from Peer Reviewers follow the same double-blind process.
Reviews will consider whether the manuscript explores an aspect of teaching and learning, is grounded in context and the literature, is methodologically sound, and contributes to the SoTL conversation. We recognize that these criteria will be demonstrated differently in various genres and disciplinary traditions. Therefore, we ask reviewers to consider manuscripts according to the criteria described by Glassick, Huber, and Maefoff in Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate (1997): clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, effective presentation, and reflective critique.
- Is this an example of, or useful to, scholarship of teaching and learning?
- Would it be of interest to SoTL practitioners?
- Does the manuscript have clear goals?
- Is it grounded in context?
- Does it draw upon sufficient knowledge of the field?
- Is it methodologically sound?
- Does it demonstrate ethically sound practice in research if applicable?
- Does it contribute to our understanding of teaching and learning?
- Does it promote conversations about teaching and learning?
- Is the quality of writing adequate?