Editorial Policies

Section Policies

Essays

The essays section profiles critical discussions and in-depth analyses of community-engaged scholarship. The works published in this section may focus on specific projects or examine broad theoretical considerations defining community-engaged scholarship

Editors
  • Natalia Khanenko-Friesen
  • Penelope Sanz
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reports from the Field

The "Reports from the Field" section includes journal contributions that may focus on specific ongoing and completed projects. Submissions into this section do not normally offer critical analysis of a broad theoretical issue nor they provide in-depth theoretical arguments.

Editors
  • Natalia Khanenko-Friesen
  • Penelope Sanz
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Exchanges

Editors
  • Natalia Khanenko-Friesen
  • Penelope Sanz
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

The book review section profiles reviews that offer critical overview of monographs, essay collections, manuals, workbooks and other self-standing published works relevant to the field of community-engaged scholarship

Editors
  • Amanda Fehr
  • Natalia Khanenko-Friesen
  • Penelope Sanz
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Media Contributions

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

From the Editor

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

From the Guest Editors

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Acknowledgements

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Submissions to the Essays Section are subject to double, blind peer-reviewing. Submissions to the Reports from the Field, Exchanges and Bookd Review sections are subject to editorial review.

 

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

General Expectations for Peer-Reviewing for Engaged Scholar Journal

The essays section profiles critical discussions and in-depth analyses of community-engaged scholarship. The works published in this section may focus on specific projects or examine broad theoretical considerations defining community-engaged scholarship.

Category A

Articles focusing on a specific project shall offer an in-depth analysis of a given project and profile its outcomes in the broader context of scholarly community engagement.

Category B

The essays section also profiles in-depth analysis and examination of theoretical and practical foundations of community-engaged scholarship. Such essays shall explore the theory and practice of engagement in a given context and discipline, or across disciplines, cultures and practical settings. Such essays should be informed by the authors’ substantive experience in community-engaged scholarly practices.

All articles profiled in this section should not just exemplify but advance the scholarship of community engagement. That is, the articles shall contribute ‘new knowledge’ to the field of engaged scholarship through the discussion of innovative research practices, convincing evidence, and novel explorations of meanings and applications of community-engaged scholarship in the author’s discipline and in the field of community-engaged scholarship in general. 

The articles should present original, unpublished work that is not under consideration by other journals or collections of essays. The articles should have a compelling and well-crafted argument, convey a point of view that shall be seen as novel and impactful, be grounded in relevant and current literature, and be written in accessible language and an engaging manner, and addressed to a broad audience of readers.

PEER REVIEWERS Review Form

Your review will be shared with the authors. Please maintain the anonymity of your identity throughout your review.

A.  To what category of articles does the essay under review belong?

Category A …

Category B…

B. In what ways does the submitted essay advance the scholarship of community-engaged research, teaching and learning?

— Please provide your comments on the quality of scholarship in the essay; please consult the general expectations outlined above.

—   What are the main claims of the paper and how significant are they?

—   How well-integrated are the disciplinary focus of the essay and the discussion of the community-engaged dimension of the project (if applicable)?

—   Who will be interested in reading the paper, and why?

C. How well-organized is the authors’ argument?

  1. The submission is well-organized and presents a strong and well-developed argument.
  2. The essay’s main argument requires further tightening.
  3. The essay’s main argument requires significant reorganization.
  4. The submission presents no argument.

D. How well-grounded are the authors’ argument and reasoning in the existing scholarly debate on engaged scholarship (in literature)?

  1. The authors’ argument and reasoning are well-grounded in the existing debates on community-engaged scholarship; the essay directly contributes to and advances this debate.
  2. The authors demonstrate strong awareness of the existing literature in the field of engaged scholarship and the essay’s argument is informed by this literature.
  3. The authors demonstrate awareness of the existing literature in the field of engaged scholarship but their argument does not build on this debate.
  4. The authors’ demonstrate little awareness of the existing debate on community-engaged scholarship.

E. How well-grounded is the authors’ argument in current literature in the authors’ field of scholarship?

  1. The authors’ argument and reasoning are well-grounded in the existing disciplinary literature.
  2. The authors demonstrate strong awareness of the existing literature in their field of study and the essay’s argument is informed by this literature.
  3. The authors demonstrate awareness of the existing literature in their field of study but their argument does not build on this debate.
  4. The authors’ demonstrate little awareness of the existing literature in their field of study.

F. How well-crafted is the prose of the submission?

Is the submission accessible to non-specialists? Does the English language appear to be the contributors’ second language? Are there many typos, mistakes? Are references in place? If applicable, is transliteration proper?

G. Please provide your recommendations

  1. _____ Accept, with minor revisions, as indicated by the reviewer
  2. _____Accept with some further revisions as indicated by the reviewer
  3. _____ Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
  4. _____ Reject, but suggest how further work might justify a resubmission
  5. _____ Reject outright, on the grounds of poor scholarship, weak methodology, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual framing, or major ethical or interpretational problems

H. Provide any further comments to the author if necessary