Thank you for sharing your expertise as NACADA produces a quality journal that contributes to the scholarly literature in academic advising. Your reviews:
- identify strengths in a manuscript,
- indicate opportunities for further development, and
- guide selection of articles for publication.
As this indicates, your role is significant. Thus, we wanted to offer a few resources to support your role as a reviewer. We welcome you to suggest other resources to us as we grow this page.
Peer Reviewer Guidelines
- begin with advising practice (describing and modeling local practice), connect practice to identified theory or model, and address how shared ideas can be applied to contexts other than your own;
- identify and explain a theory or model, discuss how the theory or model applies to advising, and address how shared ideas can be applied to diverse advising contexts;
- explore the process, conditions, and relevance of praxis as it relates to advising as a scholarly profession that spans institutions, the advising profession, or higher education in general.
The NACADA Review Rubric
The NACADA Review rubric provides guidance for authors as they compose and write a manuscript; while at the same time this rubric presents the criteria used by Editorial Board members in the manuscript review process. This rubric works for the three types of articles mentioned on the NACADA Review home page.
The rubric uses a scale to score how a criterion statement (e.g., recommendations or examples of applicability beyond just one specific context are given; suggestions for operationalizing concepts, or for identifying their applicability in various contexts) has been presented. Scores range from ‘absent’, ‘insufficient’, through ‘sufficient’ to ‘comprehensive’. Each score has its own column with boxes that can be checked. For a manuscript to be accepted, most or all items should score at least 'sufficient'. With more 'absent' and/or 'insufficient' scores, the chances increase that a manuscript will not be accepted, or accepted only after minor or major revisions.
Note that it will depend on the specific nature of the manuscript whether each item on the rubric will be present. Some items may be ‘not applicable’ (e.g., articles that are not based on a concrete case but purely deal with the application of theory to practice will probably not cover all items from the first section "Starting from local practice"). Most other items however will be important, regardless of the type of manuscript written. Each statement refers to a key aspect editors expect to find in all manuscripts submitted to the NACADA Review: clear, systematic descriptions, analyses and explanations that make visible the connections between theories, models and methods, and their concrete application and relevance for the advising profession.
This rubric allows authors to be their own first reviewer. Authors should not simply check a box if an item has been ‘covered’ instead use rubric statements to develop ideas about what could and should be in the manuscript. Authors should use each item as a starting point for offering the same honest, constructive yet critical feedback you would give a colleague or student!