Guidelines for Authors, Reviewers and for the Journal's Publication Ethics
Journal for Research on Adult Education
- DIE Home /
- Publications /
- Journal for Research on Adult Education /
- Peer Review
A list of upcoming topics is available in our preview. Please send your articles to the editorial office. Our editors will view the articles.
After being accepted, you can submit your manuscript online. We use the manuscript operating system Editorial Manager on the publisher's website. As a first-time user, please register as an author. Click on "submit online" on the right navigation bar and follow the instructions to upload your manuscript.
Only original contributions will be published. All rights of use for contents, data and illustrations must be held by the authors.
The appropriate rules for academic publishing apply. The journal uses the citation style developed by the American Psychological Association (APA). It includes citation counts in both texts and bibliography.
Please contact Thomas Jung for further assistance.
For detailed information: Authors' guidelines
Reviewer (Book Reviews)
Reviews are commissioned by the editors upon the recommendation of the publishers. To avoid courtesy reviews, the Journal for Research on Adult Education - Report does not published unrequested reviews.
Reviews cover current publications from the field as well as from relevant reference disciplines. They briefly describe and discuss the content and critically evaluate the publication at hand. Despite the mostly objective description of the article in question, reviews always contain the subjectively commented view of the reviewer to encourage the reader to independently analyse the reviewed publication.
For detailed information: Guidelines for reviews
Reviewer (Peer Reviews)
Since 2006, the articles undergo a double-blind peer review process, which meets internationally acknowledged standards. The editors suggest a minimum of two reviewers per contribution, who are addressed by the editorial team and provided with anonymised contributions. The review forms contain a confidential part, which presents 15 criteria. The grading between 1 (complied) and 3 (not complied) or 0 (incorrect) enables a standardised assessment for classifying the contribution as "accepted", "accepted and improvement recommended" or "rejected". In addition, the reviewers are asked for an expertise in their own words, which is then anonymised and made available to the authors.
The review as well as the editor's statement are summarised and communicated to the author. After the revision, the contribution is re-examined by the responsible editor regarding the reviewers recommendations and published.
The following guidelines for Publication Ethics apply for ZFW. They are based on and in compliance with COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Kurzlink zu dieser Seite: