JOURNAL FOR RESEARCH IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
Information for Reviewers
I. Policy Statement
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME) is a journal of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. It is
devoted to upgrading the quality of research in mathematics education by publishing articles that contribute significantly to our
understanding of mathematics learning, teaching, and curriculum. JRME publishes articles dealing with reports of research
(including experiments, case studies, surveys, philosophical studies, and historical studies), literature reviews, theoretical
analyses, critiques of articles or books, and commentaries on issues pertaining to research.
Articles accepted for publication must be of high quality, must make significant contributions to the field, and must not have
been accepted for publication elsewhere. In particular, the work should be well conceptualized, theoretically grounded, and
move the field forward in clearly identifiable ways.
II. The Review Process
JRME is a peer-reviewed journal that depends heavily on volunteer reviewers. When a manuscript is received, it is usually sent
to at least three reviewers. Reviewers are chosen on the basis of their qualifications to comment on the topic, methodology, or
other aspects of the research described in the submitted manuscript.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the merits of the manuscript and the research described therein. JRME does not have a fixed set
of criteria to be used by reviewers, but reviewers may find it useful to consider the following questions as they read the
manuscript and prepare their review:
• Does the research extend or deepen our understanding of important issues in mathematics education? Does it have
the potential to lead the field in new directions?
• Do the research questions pertain to issues of significant theoretical or pragmatic concern? Are they well-grounded
in theory or in prior research?
• Is there an appropriate match between the research question(s) and the methods and analyses employed to answer the
• Does the conduct of the study include the effective application of appropriate data collection, analysis, and
• Are the claims and conclusions in the manuscript justified in some acceptable way, and do they logically follow from
the data or information presented?
• Is the writing lucid, clear, and well-organized?
In addition, reviewers are asked to make one of the following recommendations to the editor:
(1) accept the manuscript "as is" (i.e., without further revisions or additional review);
(2) accept the manuscript pending revisions but without additional review;
(3) reject the manuscript, but encourage the author to revise and resubmit a new version for additional review(s);
(4) reject the manuscript.
Reviewers should prepare a written analysis and commentary regarding the specific strengths and limitations of the manuscript
and the research reported therein. The review should be aligned with the recommendation made to the editor and should be
written with the understanding both that it will be used by the editor to make a publication decision and that it will be sent as
feedback to the author. The more explicit, detailed, and constructive a reviewer’s comments, the more helpful the review will
be to the editor and author alike.
If a reviewer wishes to make comments for the editor that should not be seen by the author, these comments should be made in a
separate document. Such comments should not be written on the manuscript; notations made on the manuscript will not be
edited when the copy is returned to the author.
III. Editorial Decision and Follow-up
Thorough reviews assist the editor in making a decision regarding publication of the manuscript. After reviews are received, the
editor makes one of four decisions: (a) to accept the manuscript as is, (b) to accept the manuscript pending revision, (c) to reject
the manuscript but encourage the author to revise and resubmit the manuscript for a new review, or (d) to reject the manuscript.
When the editor makes a decision about the manuscript, the author is notified. As part of the notification process, the written
comments from each reviewer are sent. Normally, notification of the editorial decision and copies of all reviews are also sent to
each manuscript reviewer. 8/00