TESE Report
Reviewer Guidelines
Submission Guidelines
Abstract and Index Info
Comments and Suggestions
Editorial Staff and Board
Subscribing to TESE
Program Descriptions
Editorial Policy
Manuscript Tracking

Guidelines for Reviewers

Teacher Education and Special Education (TESE) is the journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children. Its purpose is to publish scholarly work that pertains to teacher preparation for special education. Examples of manuscripts that would be considered appropriate for submission include:

  • Data-based applied research
  • Reviews of the literature
  • Position papers intended to stimulate critical discussion
  • Reports of best practices and innovations that are grounded in the research
  • Data-based reports of basic research with direct, well-specified implications for practice

Role of the Reviewer

The reviewer’s role is twofold:

  1. To assist the editors of TESE in evaluating the acceptability of submitted manuscripts for publication
  2. To assist authors, when appropriate, in the process of refining manuscripts into works that would be acceptable for publication

Reviewer Recommendations

Submitted manuscripts will be sent out to three reviewers. Each reviewer is asked to make a clear recommendation regarding the manuscript’s acceptability for publication. Three recommendations may be made:

  1. Accept

Indicates that the manuscript’s content is acceptable for publication. Manuscripts may be accepted pending specific revisions that should be detailed in the reviewer’s written evaluation. Such revisions should not significantly change the content or methodology of the submitted manuscript. Suggested revisions may include (but are not limited to):

  • Reorganization of existing content to improve readability and clarity
  • Corrections necessary to conform to APA style
  • Alteration of specific phrases or terms to conform with practice standards
  • Expansion or updating of citations and/or literature reviews
  1. Reject, Revise, and Resubmit

    Indicates that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication in its current state but might become acceptable following a substantial revision. Such revisions generally entail major reconceptualization or rework on the part of the author. If you are confident that the manuscript would be accepted if the revisions were followed, do not use this category. Use the accept category and specify the necessary revisions.

    This recommendation is best used when the manuscript appears to be publishable but is missing key information that could impact your final decision. It hould be used only when it is clear that the suggested revisions are reasonable given the scope and basic structure of the manuscript and that the author can, in fact, accomplish these revisions. If the manuscript does not meet these criteria, we ask that you use the reject category instead.

    Upon resubmission, the manuscript will be checked against the suggested evisions to ensure each point has been addressed and will again go through the review process with the original three reviewers.

  2. Reject

Indicates the article is not acceptable for publication in TESE. Reasons to reject include (but are not limited to):

  • The manuscript’s structure or content is inappropriate for publication in TESE
  • The manuscript’s methodology is flawed and is judged to be outside the author’s power to revise or reconceptualize
  • The manuscript is based on outdated or questionable research
  • The manuscript’s conceptual framework does not contribute to the field

Reviewer Evaluations

Reviews of manuscripts should be thorough, constructive, and in appropriate form to be sent to the author. Reviews should address specific points in the manuscript, be stated in a conditional rather than a directive manner, address strengths as well as weaknesses, and be written so that the author can benefit from the evaluation. Reviews should be written in narrative form and should include:

    1. An acknowledgement of the author’s work, including the reviewer’s acknowledgement of the importance of the question or topic addressed, if indicated;
    2. Constructive information or suggestions about how the manuscript might be revised, strengthened, or reconceptualized for current or future publication. If the manuscript contains critical flaws that cannot be addressed even through substantial revision, suggestions as to how such flaws might be corrected should be included in the evaluation;
    3. The reviewer’s rationale for the editorial recommendation with direct references to points in the manuscript whenever possible; and
    4. Suggestions for alternative outlets when the manuscript’s content is deemed inappropriate for TESE but thought to be publishable through a different venue or journal.

A one-page form is provided for reviewers’ recommendations. Reviewers are encouraged to include additional pages as needed. Detailed reviews will vary in length depending on the manuscript, the explanation that accompanies the editorial recommendation, and suggestions for revision. Bulleted suggestions or lists of points are welcomed as they help to organize the editors’ final evaluations concerning the manuscript.

Returning the Evaluation

Reviewers may use one of the following options for returning evaluations:

Reviewers should return 4 copies of the recommendation form and any additional pages to:

Joyce Melvin Green , Managing Editor
Department of Special Education and Child Development
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
9201 University City Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28223

Once an editorial decision has been reached, the author of the manuscript will be notified. A copy of each reviewer’s evaluation will be sent to the author of the manuscript as well as to each of the three reviewers.

For questions, concerns, or comments, contact Deborah Colerick, Co-Managing Editor, at (704)687-8831 or by e-mail at dmcoleri@uncc.edu.