Peer-Review Process

Every manuscript proceeds through a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. This means that both the reviewers’ and author(s)’ identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Upon receiving a manuscript, an editorial staff member will ensure that the manuscript (including abstract, tables, figures, references, and supplemental files) adheres to the formatting guidelines and all of the author(s) personal information has been removed. Manuscripts that do not follow the formatting guidelines will be sent back to the primary author with an explanation. The co-editors will then verify the manuscript’s suitability for the journal. Manuscripts that are deemed unsuitable for the journal will be sent back to the primary author with an explanation. If the co-editors find the manuscript to be suitable for the journal, it is sent to two different Editorial Review Board (ERB) members for their comments, which are then made available to the author(s) along with a summary of the review written by one of the co-editors and, when applicable, specific suggestions for revising the manuscript. Based on the comments of the double-blind peer-review process, the co-editors will again review the manuscript and make a final decision to either accept or reject a manuscript. If the manuscript is accepted, an email will be sent to the primary author with an official letter of acceptance. If revisions are needed, the ERB will assist making copy edits as necessary; however, the author(s) will primarily be responsible for the quality of the published manuscript.

ISTE Manuscript Review Criteria

Manuscripts will be reviewed on the following criteria based on the extent to which:

  • the manuscript is current and explicitly identifies what the innovation is and how it is an innovative practice;
  • the ideas/activities are relevant and appeal to a broad audience of science educators who prepare in-service or pre-service teachers;
  • the ideas/activities are clear, concise and conveyed with practical prose;
  • the author(s) provide a clear description of the ideas/activities and evidence that the ideas/activities were implemented;
  • the author(s) provide evidence that the ideas/activities effectively addressed a measure of student or course outcomes;
  • the author(s) provide a well-reasoned rationale for the innovative ideas/activities consistent with existing literature and theoretical frameworks;
  • the innovative ideas/activities are consistent with best practices in science teacher preparation for the student population described;
  • the article describes how to address safety concerns, if there are any.