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
Role of the Reviewer
The reviewers role is twofold:
- To assist the editors of TESE in evaluating the
acceptability of submitted manuscripts for publication
- To assist authors, when appropriate, in the process of refining manuscripts
into works that would be acceptable for publication
Submitted manuscripts will be sent out to three reviewers. Each
reviewer is asked to make a clear recommendation regarding the manuscripts
acceptability for publication. Three recommendations may be made:
Indicates that the manuscripts content is acceptable for
publication. Manuscripts may be accepted pending specific revisions that should
be detailed in the reviewers 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
- 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.
Indicates the article is not acceptable for publication in TESE.
Reasons to reject include (but are not limited to):
- The manuscripts structure or content is inappropriate for publication
- The manuscripts methodology is flawed and is judged to be outside
the authors power to revise or reconceptualize
- The manuscript is based on outdated or questionable research
- The manuscripts conceptual framework does not contribute to the
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
- An acknowledgement of the authors work, including the reviewers
acknowledgement of the importance of the question or topic addressed, if
- 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;
- The reviewers rationale for the editorial recommendation with direct
references to points in the manuscript whenever possible; and
- Suggestions for alternative outlets when the manuscripts 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
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 reviewers 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.