On Thursday, October 1, the Journal of Peer Tutoring in Secondary Schools Editorial Board hosted a Digital Roundtable for SSWCA members interested in knowing more about writing for and publishing in the Journal. Our conversation reviewed the purpose of the Journal, the double-blind peer review process, and explored the research, practitioner, and tutor strands the Journal plans to publish.
The following notes were generated from our conversation.
What is the Journal’s mission?
- The Journal of Peer Tutoring in Secondary Schools is a SSWCA-published, peer-reviewed journal seeking thought-provoking pieces that explore questions related to secondary school peer tutoring.
- We expect that contributing articles will be research-based, relevant – that is, timely and pertinent to peer tutoring work – and situated within existing theory and conversation.
- Our goals include celebrating student and professional voices and contributing to the field of writing center theory and practice through scholarly discourse.
What is Double-Blind Review? What is the review process for manuscripts submitted to the Journal?
- Double-blind peer review is the standard for academic publications. What it means is that peer reviewers (in our case, writing center directors, researchers, and sometimes, tutors) won’t know who the submitting author is and the submitting author won’t know who the reviewers are. This allows for honest and thorough critical scholarly review to ensure that the practices and principles being shared are in line with expectations and standards in the field.
- When you submit an article to JPTSS (see submission link here), it will go through the following review process:
- Desk review by a section editor: The section editors determine if the article is likely to be a good fit for the journal. Based on this determination, the article will be rejected, sent back to the author for revisions, or sent out to reviewers for external review.
- Peer review: With the approval of the section editor, the article will go out to be read and evaluated by peer reviewers in the field. The CFPs include the rubric reviewers will use to evaluate articles. Peer reviewers will send decision recommendations back to the editors (reject, recommend major revision, recommend minor revision, or accept). This decision, after review by the editors, will be sent back to authors, at which point they can decide whether they want to continue through the revision process.
- Author revisions: Based on feedback from the editor(s) and/or reviewer(s), the article will likely have to go through a few rounds of review and in some cases will be sent back to the original reviewers for a second read and review to determine if the revisions have satisfied their concerns. Authors at this point will work most closely with their section editors.
- Publication: To prepare an article for publication, it will have to be approved for content by the editors (with the support of reviewers) before going through a copyediting and formatting process.
What resources are there to support me in moving my writing toward publication in the Journal?
- Call for Papers (CFP)
- Keep the CFP nearby as a key reference and guide for deciding what to write about, how to structure the article, what considerations to take into account, how to submit, etc.
- Tutor Article Template
- Tutor articles have a suggested template that helps you frame your piece
- Start with a problem/challenge that you have faced – start with yourself and the context of your learning question (what do we need to know about you? About your school? Your writing center?)
- When you look for supporting research/literature, make sure it is directly related to the question you are bringing to your practice. You might also draw on research/information from another domain (e.g., coaching strategies for athletics, understanding tutor and tutee personality types, social media marketing strategies, for example). You may also draw on writing center theories and practice (articles you’ve read in your tutor training courses, other research you’ve done about secondary and/or postsecondary writing centers).
- Share what happened, what you did, what you learned
- Conclude with some reflections on what you learned/gained from the experience & how it could be relevant to other writing centers (think about an audience beyond just you/your school – what should other centers learn/take away from your findings?)
- Exemplar Tutor Essay (will be posted on the SSWCA website soon)
Breakout Groups.
We then divided into breakout groups: tutor manuscript authors with Susan (Tutor Article Section Editor) and research/practitioner manuscript authors with Amber (Managing Editor) to discuss specific questions related to their own in-progress research and manuscripts. We discussed a range of questions in the breakout groups, including:
- What are some relevant topics writers might consider for an article in this strand?
- How can a writer understand how writing for publication in JPTSS might be different from other kinds of school/professional writing they do?
- What can writers do to set themselves up for success as they compose and submit their articles and move through the revision and editing processes?
- What other questions do attendees have for journal editors?
SSWCA invites you to join us at future digital roundtable discussions. Check here for topics, dates, and to register.