Reviewer Guidelines

As we know, the scholarly publication process can be confusing and overwhelming. We hope that the feedback process, similar to writing center sessions, will help scholars to become more familiar with and confident in academic publishing.

Review Process & Timeline

Given the nature of academic publishing and our specific author composition, we hope to make the publication process as smooth and timely as possible. We ask that reviewers can complete a review in four weeks. We hope that you are willing to review a submission more than once, so that we can provide continuity in feedback for our authors during the revision process. 

As a reviewer with the ECWCA Journal, you will not be asked to review more than one article with us at a time. Our review cycling begins in the late spring/early summer, so you will likely be asked to review in May and June. Here is a tentative timeline for what to expect if you sign up to be a reviewer:

• May: Review request will be emailed to you. Please respond within a week.

• May-June: If you accept the request, we ask that you review the assigned piece in approximately four weeks. We will share specific timeline and contact information with you at that time. 

• May-June: Use the “Giving Feedback” guidance below for preparing your review. 

• June: Share feedback. 

• June: We will share feedback with the author(s). 

• July/August: Writers will revise their submission using the feedback you, another reviewer, and members of the editorial board have provided. 

• August/September: You may be asked to review the revised article again if your response to the initial submission was “Revise and Resubmit.” Again, we would like you to respond to the request within a week.

• August/September/October: Should you accept the request, we ask that you review the revised piece within four weeks. We will share specific timeline and contact information with you once you’ve accepted the request.

As you  can see, the timeline is somewhat malleable, but we strive to be mindful of everyone’s time and contributions to the journal. We appreciate reviewers in providing their experience and expertise to the journal.

Giving Feedback

Our review guidelines are based on the guidelines of another writing center journal that we admire and that also prioritizes sharing the voices of emerging scholars, The Peer Review. We ask that reviewers read like writing center consultants with the intent of encouraging writers.

Engaged: Engaged feedback refers to the paper as a whole. Please say what you see, as a reader, when specific moments in the submission are unclear, confusing, or otherwise ineffective. Please also share what you see as a reader when moments in the submission are particularly productive, novel, or otherwise noteworthy.

Thoughtful: Reviewer feedback should be kind and compassionate. Thoughtful feedback recognizes that many of our authors are still learning the language of our academic field and the feedback reflects that particular point.

Actionable: Actionable feedback offers concrete advice for improvement. It is also feedback that understands the context of a project and recognizes what is doable and unrealistic for undergraduate and graduate scholars to undertake in their revisions. Finally, actionable feedback includes goals for the author that they can act upon.

Reviewer Determinations

There are a few different outcomes for the review process, which include Accept for Publication, Revise and Resubmit, and Reject for Publication. The editors of the journal vet all submissions for relevance and, barring any very drastic issues with the submission, we hope that Reject is really a last option.

Revise and Resubmit: There might be major concerns with the article that include wholesale reorganization, significant additional research, or major clarification of the study, which would warrant a Revise and Resubmit.

If you have any questions about reviewing for the ECWCA Journal, please contact us at ecwcajournal@gmail.com