Skip to main content

Manuscript Review Form: Science Scope

Manuscript Review Form: Science Scope

Science Scope coverYour anonymous comments will be used to help the author revise the manuscript.

If you have been assigned a Feature article or Column other than a Commentary to review (see Manuscript Type above), please answer questions 1 through 12 below (skip questions 13–17). If you are reviewing a Column, please answer "NA" for those questions that do not apply to your manuscript. For example, manuscripts for the Science on a Shoestring column or the Integrating Technology column will more than likely not require assessments or links to the standards. For such manuscripts, be sure to include your opinion regarding the value of the described activity in the Comments to Editor field. If you have been assigned a Commentary to review, please answer questions 13 through 17 (skip questions 1–12). Regardless of the manuscript type assigned, all reviewers should complete the final three sections of the review form that ask you to rate the manuscript, make an overall recommendation, and provide feedback to the editor and author.

Questions for Feature Articles and Columns

  1. Is the manuscript accurate, scientifically and otherwise? Explain any inaccuracies.
  2. Is the activity/content grade-level appropriate and is it clear to the reader that the activity/strategy has actually been used in the classroom?
  3. Are classroom management tips for grouping, time, equipment, etc., included in the manuscript?
  4. Does the manuscript target and clearly outline a particular combination of disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and cross cutting concepts as identified in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)? Are correct codes for the associated standard and/or performance expectation from the NGSS provided?
  5. Does the manuscript support three-dimensional teaching and learning as outlined by the Framework?  Are students actively involved in sensemaking?
  6. Does the manuscript explicitly link to any grade level Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and/or Mathematics listed in the Connection Box of the NGSS? If so, is the alignment grade-level appropriate?
  7. Is the activity safe at the recommended grade level? Are appropriate safety procedures included? List any missing safety considerations that you feel are necessary for this activity.
  8. Is the manuscript thorough? Are the activities, procedures, examples, and other components complete? Do the student directions, questions, and other tasks require higher-order thinking skills that focus on deeper understanding and application of content?
  9. Is the manuscript easy to read and logically sequenced; does it flow well from start to finish?
  10. Is the activity interesting and new? Is it similar to another activity from a print or online source? Does the manuscript promote a person or commercial product/service?
  11. Is the manuscript inclusive with regard to gender, multicultural awareness, and costs? Are differentiation strategies for students with special needs provided?
  12. Does the manuscript contain appropriate current research citations, personal experiences, or other evidence to support the strategies it recommends and the claims it makes?
  13. Does the manuscript contain effective formative and summative assessments? Are the assessments accessible and unbiased; do they use grade-level appropriate language? Are rubrics, answer keys, and scoring guidelines provided? Do they offer sufficient guidance for interpreting student performance?

Questions for Commentary

  1. Is the manuscript accurate, scientifically and otherwise? Explain any inaccuracies.
  2. Is the manuscript of value and interest to middle school teachers?
  3. Does the manuscript discuss a relevant and current topic?
  4. Is the author's opinion supported by research?
  5. Is the manuscript easy to read and logically sequenced; does it flow well from start to finish?

Overall recommendation for this manuscript

Recommendation (check one)  
Send for minor revision  
Send for major revision  
Reject with encouragement to rewrite/resubmit  


Overall Rating:
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