Thank you for your interest in reviewing for IPED. One of the aims of the journal is to facilitate dialogue across traditional disciplinary and geographical boundaries. Further, IPED aims to encourage submissions from students and early career academics, as well as establish academics and practitioners. We ask you consider this when reviewing for the journal.
This document sets out our peer review guidance which we hope will assist you in providing feedback on the article you have been asked to review. If the article does not fit within your expertise or you will not have time to review the article please do let us know so that we can find an alternative reviewer.
All submissions to IPED will be double blind reviewed by at least two experts in the field. We ask reviewers to provide constructive feedback on the submission they have been asked to review. When drafting your feedback to the author/s please consider the criteria and questions set out below. We do not ask reviewers to recommend acceptance or rejection of articles, however, we do request that reviewers clearly set out any desired changes. The following guidelines apply to all submissions including original research, case study or student essay.
Submissions to IPED must be original. We are seeking submissions which will develop our theoretical and/or empirical understanding of issues relating to equality and diversity. Submissions should build on existing knowledge, they therefore need to be rooted in the existing literature. Some questions to consider
- Is the article presenting new knowledge?
- Has the article clearly set out the importance of the reported research?
- Does the article repeat what is already known about equality and diversity?
- Does the article use innovative methods to address a familiar problem?
- Does the article develop our theoretical understanding of a familiar problem?
- Does the article identify a new problem?
Submissions must clearly set out their methods (where relevant), whether this is analysis of a case study, the extant literature, secondary data sets or the collection of primary data.
- Are the methods adopted appropriate to the research question / aim?
- Are the methods clearly set out?
- Have the author/s considered the underlying methodology (if appropriate)?
- Have ethical issues been given the appropriate consideration?
Does the submission have a clear narrative? Is the structure appropriate to the argument presented, for example, it may be appropriate to combine ‘findings’ and ‘discussion’?
When drafting your review please ensure that your feedback provides clear direction for how the submission can be improved. Reviews must not use language which is sexist, racist, disabilist or otherwise perpetuates inequalities. Please bear in mind that the author may not be an academic, may be from a discipline or may be earlier in their career, as such it is important that feedback to authors is respectful and encourages the development of the author. This may include avoidance of directly addressing the author, for example ‘the author/s need to clarify their contribution’ rather than ‘I can’t see the point of this paper, you haven’t made the contribution clear’.