Join
Menu
Menu Search Join
 

CSL Contribution Review Form

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for agreeing to review a contribution submitted to Connected Science Learning. We use a double-blind review process, where the contribution authors are not explicitly revealed to reviewers, and reviewers are not revealed to authors.

We ask that you complete your review and return it within two weeks of receiving this request. If something unexpected arises that will keep you from completing the review by the deadline, please contact us immediately.

Also, please let us know if you feel you have a have a conflict of interest (e.g., collaborator on the program described in the article) that will keep you from providing an objective review of the contribution and therefore cannot check the box under the 1st criterion listed below. We will then ask someone else to review the manuscript.

Please review the contribution based on the criteria given below. Please make comments under each item, but feel free to skip an item if you do not think it applies to the contribution. 

We appreciate your anonymous comments, which will help us assess the quality of the contribution, its applicability for inclusion in Connected Science Learning, and be helpful to the author(s) if we request a revision of the manuscript.

Review Criteria
(please make comments as appropriate under each item)

  1. ____ Please check here to indicate that you do not know of any conflict of interest with reviewing this contribution and that you can provide an objective review of the manuscript.

 

  1. Is the manuscript accurate, scientifically and otherwise? Explain any inaccuracies?

 

  1. Does the manuscript explicitly show collaboration between in-school and out-of-school science educators?

 

 

  1. Does this article provide information that would be useful to a national audience? Can the ideas/activities contained within be replicated in institutions, organizations and/or schools across the country?

 

  1. Is the manuscript thorough? Are the program components, examples, and other components complete and provide a compelling image of the nature of the program?

 

 

  1. Does the manuscript contain appropriate program outcome evaluation, current research citations, personal experiences, or other evidence to support the strategies it recommends and the claims it makes?

 

  1. Is the manuscript easy to read and logically sequenced? Does it flow well from start to finish?

 

 

  1. Is the information interesting and new? Is it similar to another article from a print or online source? Does the manuscript promote a person or commercial product/service?

 

  1. Is the manuscript inclusive with regard to gender, multicultural awareness, and costs? Are differentiation strategies for individuals with special needs provided?

 

 

  1. Are appropriate safety procedures included? List any missing safety considerations that you feel are necessary.

 

  1. Overall recommendation for this manuscript (check one):

____ Accept
____ Send for minor revision
____ Send for major revision
____ Reject with encouragement to rewrite/resubmit
____ Reject

Overall Rating (check one):

____ Good (high potential)
____ Fair (medium potential)
____Poor (low potential)

Comments to the editor that you do not wish to be shared with the author:

 

 

Summary comments for the author including anything that does not fit any section above:

 

 

 

 

Asset 2