Reading Research Quarterly, the acknowledged leader in publishing reading research, welcomes submission of research-based manuscripts that make significant contributions to advancing knowledge and understanding of reading and literacy, broadly defined. RRQ aims to publish articles that make significant research contributions to the field of literacy and hold promise for improving instructional practice.
Articles published in RRQ are primarily reports of original and rigorously conducted research, employing diverse epistemologies, methodologies, and disciplinary perspectives. Also included are new theoretical or methodological perspectives, comprehensive syntheses of research toward developing new understandings, and scholarly analyses of trends and issues in the field.
Suggested Guidelines for RRQ Manuscript Review
Generally, reviews that provide a detailed discussion of key strengths and problems with the manuscript along with an evaluation of potential for publication will be the most helpful to the editors and authors.
Keep in mind that RRQ does not extend the revision process beyond one or two revisions, so a manuscript that in your opinion will require a substantial amount of revision is not a good candidate for eventual publication, particularly if there are serious methodological problems.
Some reviewers like to start by briefly summarizing what the authors did, what they found, and how the authors interpreted the findings. It is often helpful to give your overall evaluation of the manuscript and the main reasons for your recommendation for possible publication at the beginning of your review. You may find the following key questions helpful in guiding your review:
With this view of research in mind, please consider the following questions as you review a manuscript:
- Does the manuscript identify a significant problem and is it relevant to literacy education and literacy research? Are the findings original and do they extend or confirm current knowledge base?
- Is the literature review/theoretical framework of the manuscript consistent with topics and issues raised in the manuscript?
- How good is the fit between the research questions(s) and methodology?
- Have the authors conducted the data collection and analysis appropriately
- Are the conclusions clearly grounded in the analysis of the data?
- How is the research significant for informing and improving theory and/or practice?
- Is the writing clear and engaging?
Features of a Good Review
- A good review makes explicit the bases for comments and recommendations. Make your thinking public.
- A good review is well organized. Use a logical structure to organize your review.
- A good review is constructive. A good review should be formative as well a summative in its evaluation. If you think a manuscript should be rejected, give feedback that will help the authors improve their work in future manuscripts or studies. Even if a manuscript is outstanding in all aspects, help the authors understand the range of potential responses the manuscript may receive from members of the research community. Be specific and to the point.
- A good review addresses the author(s). By writing as if you are addressing the author(s), you emphasize the importance of the review in helping authors strengthen their work, regardless of whether their manuscript is accepted for publication.
- No matter how severe your judgment, please phrase your critique in a constructive manner.
- Your review should be proofed carefully to avoid spelling and grammar errors.
- RRQ is an international journal and is committed to diversity and global research. Some manuscripts you are asked to review may use varieties of English other than standard U.S. English.
- The manuscripts you are invited to review are confidential. You cannot use or cite in any way a manuscript you have received for review.