Review Guidelines

Thank you for agreeing to be a reviewer for STiLE.

 

An Overview of the Aims of the STiLE

  • STiLE is aimed at publishing multimodal content related to the scholarship of language teaching and learning. It provides a space where practitioners can both showcase and share their scholarly informed work in language education, in order to collaborate in a way that connects knowledge and practice.
  • STiLE is designed to reflect the nature of language education as one that combines expertise in language and pedagogy which includes both theoretically grounded understanding and rich experience in the art of teaching. Underpinning language education as a field is adherence to educational values which result in strong commitment to students in the classroom as the ultimate priority. It is this priority which distinguishes “scholarship” from “research”.
  • Recognising that knowledge is distributed and dispersed, the Platform provides a place for practitioners to connect their knowledge – both with each other and with other knowledge. The Platform is a place both to contribute to existing research, and to make sense of existing research – as it applies to teaching and learning. Researchers of language will find the authentic context of scholarship work useful for framing their inquiry.
  • While the origin of the STiLE is the Hong Kong context, the orientation should be appropriate for an international audience. In terms of actual features, it includes aspects of a traditional academic journal, but also expects multimodal submissions, as well as features more typical of social media and/or online magazines.

 

Submission Categories

Prospective authors can submit original works under the following categories:

 

(I) Scholarship Papers/Articles

This category is appropriate for full-length papers. Empirical studies, meta-analyses of existing studies and critical explorations of literature relevant to language education are welcome. However, bear in mind that to qualify as scholarship, the focus of the paper needs to be an aspect of teaching or learning, and/or engage with teaching and learning explicitly. The research can relate to any language and the submission can be in any language1. 

While text-only submissions are welcome, we would be pleased to receive multimodal submissions. The general expectation is an abstract plus the typical structure of a research paper. For text-only submissions, the expectation is 3400 to 8000 words (5100-12,000中文字). For a fully video submission, the expectation is 20 to 30 minutes (with English subtitles preferred). Multimodal submissions should work within approximate corresponding word/minute limits. 

 

(II) Reviews: (a) Review of Scholarly Research

This category has been created for individuals to review books, book chapters, or journal papers offering useful perspectives about scholarly research from the perspective of teaching and learning. Readers are encouraged to submit their work in formats such as text, audio, or video. This category welcomes reviews of research from the fields of linguistics, second language acquisition/learning, psychology, and education, with a focus on making sense of findings that are applicable to language education. The reviewed publications may pertain to any language, and submissions can be made in any language1. 

Text-only submissions up to 2500 words (3750中文字) are welcome, while video/audio submissions are expected to last no longer than 10 minutes (with English subtitles preferred). Multimodal submissions should work within approximate corresponding word/minute limits. 

 

(II) Reviews: (b) Other Reviews (e.g. Teaching Resources/Conferences)

In this category, individuals who have utilized various teaching resources such as online materials, e-platforms, or textbooks are encouraged to share their insights on the usefulness and relevance of these resources with readers. Additionally, those who have attended conferences are encouraged to ‘review’ the conference, passing on insights that would benefit fellow language educators. Submissions reviewing resources related to any language are welcomed, and contributions can be made in any language1.  Text-only submissions up to 2500 words (3750中文字) are welcome, while video/audio submissions are expected to last no longer than 10 minutes (with English subtitles preferred). Multimodal submissions should work within approximate corresponding word/minute limits. 

 

(III) Reflection: (a) Critical Reflections and Projections    

This category has been created for educators who are reflecting on their current teaching practices. Reflection represents a systematic approach to thinking that aids in the analysis, reconstruction, and re-evaluation of teaching and learning plans. Educators who have implemented new initiatives or strategies and wish to share their assessments of effectiveness with fellow teachers are particularly encouraged to contribute. Submissions discussing topics related to any language are welcomed and can be made in any language1.  

Submissions can be in any mode (text, audio and/or video). Video/audio submissions should be up to 12 minutes (with English subtitles preferred) and text around 2500-3500 words (3750-5250中文字). Multimodal submissions should work within approximate corresponding word/minute limits. 

 

(III) Reflection: (b) Scholarly Squibs/Stories/Takeaways

This category has been created for contributors who have short, thought-provoking, and highly applicable pieces that will interest the language education community. Contributors may address current issues or practices, such as new theoretical claims about teaching, or offer practical suggestions that could significantly benefit teachers, like the introduction of language corpora in course materials, etc. Topics can relate to any language, and submissions can be made in any language1.  Submissions can be in any mode (text, audio and/or video). Video/audio (with English subtitles preferred) can be up to 4 minutes and text up to 1000 words (1500中文字). Multimodal submissions should work within approximate corresponding word/minute limits.

 

(IV) Plug and Play

This category is for digital classroom materials that are ‘plug and play’ in the sense that language teachers could use them as-is in the context of their classes. Given the volume of text/print-based materials already available, this category is limited to multimodal and/or interactive submissions only.  While innovation/originality is welcome, we would also consider submissions which have great potential for impact in the sense of being very useful in language teaching. Topics can relate to any language and the submission can be in any language1.  Unless a particular need dictates otherwise, videos should be no longer than 5 minutes.

 

Note1

For languages other than English or Chinese, please get in touch with the Editors in advance so that we can ensure that we have Reviewers who can evaluate your submission. 

 

What is expected of Reviewers

Upon agreeing to join the group of Reviewers for the Scholarship Platform, reviewers are asked to inform us if there is a category they are not comfortable reviewing. The review policy of the scholarship platform can be summed up as “edit till ready to publish”. Authors are encouraged to continuously revise their submissions until these are deemed to have reached the scholarly/professional standards of the Platform, which are detailed in the Reviewer Feedback Form. 

The normal review process will rely on two reviewers in the first round. If there is need for substantial change, we will invite one reviewer to continue in the capacity of Lead Reviewer, to provide support and feedback, guiding the revision process. Because of the nature of this ‘guided’ process, anonymity will be waived from this stage. 

Whether an additional reviewer is needed at some point will depend on the outcome of the reviewing process as it unfolds.

 

Duties of reviewers

  • Take up and conduct the review assignments in a timely manner
  • Review the content submitted by the contributor providing comments as requested on the Reviewer Feedback Form 
  • Provide an overall rating to help the editors get a sense of the reviewer’s overall judgment
  • Round 1: communicate with the editor(s) if there are any questions or concerns

 

Competing Interests

Before you send the author’s contribution for review, you will be asked to declare whether you have any competing interests. As we are a small community we expect that contributors, reviewers and editors may know each other. The fact of knowing someone professionally does not by itself mean that there is a competing interest that would prevent reviewing. We would request that you just make note of how you know the person in question. If, however, there has been any conflict, or if there is a personal relationship which may influence your work, then you should make this known so that the best way forward can be identified. 

 

Review Request and Submission Deadlines:

  • Review response deadline: 3 days
  • Review submission deadline: 4 weeks
  • Review submission reminder: 7 days before deadline
  • Revision request (to author):
    • Minor revision: 3 weeks
    • Major revision: 4 weeks

If you require more time than this, please let us know what deadline suits you and we will modify our timescale.

This flowchart gives an overview of the entire submission/review process.

 

Guidance on Completing Your Review

Before being sent to you, an Editor will have considered the contribution in terms of scope to ensure that the topic/focus conforms to the broad expectations of the Platform. (For example, even a very sound piece of language research would not be in scope if it did not have direct implications for teaching and learning.)

Given the ‘edit until publish’ ethos, please frame your comments in the form of constructive feedback, providing suggestions for change to the extent that you reasonably can, and as appropriate. It’s useful to include some positive comments in addition to suggestions for change, to help to clarify how the contributor has met expectations.

To help ensure an appropriate tone, draft your comments as if the author is going to read them directly. This approach will make next steps easier, if further rounds of revision are needed.

 

Innovation and/or impact

  • Please notice the ‘or’ in this criterion. It is especially crucial for some categories of contribution. A Plug and Play submission, for example, is not likely to provide ‘new knowledge or insights’. 

 

Scholarship of teaching and learning

  • As noted above, the editor should have returned any submission that is too indirectly related to teaching and learning. However, your view on this is very welcome. Editors will reconsider if you have concerns. 
  • For contributions in all scholarship submissions except Plug and Play, reference to relevant literature through citation is expected. For Plug and Play contributions, while it is not likely that there will be citation, the contribution is expected to conform to mainstream theoretical understanding. (For example, a contribution making use of a widely discredited methodology or approach would not be considered acceptable.)

 

Presentation

  • This category covers both text and multimodal contributions, as appropriate. 
  • Because you are not expected to have any technical expertise, you do not need to suggest how to fix presentation issues, but instead are asked to point them out. (For example, if the sound quality is poor, it’s good enough to describe the manner in which it is poor without suggesting how to fix it.)

 

Particulars of Category

  • This criterion is included because of the considerable differences between the category types.
  • You could also use this section to comment on an aspect of the contribution that may not be well covered in the other Criteria. 

 

Any Overall Comments for the Contributor 

  • This section is intended for global comments about the contribution overall. You could also put ‘other’ comments here if you cannot find a natural place for them within the four given Criteria. But most importantly, please provide some global feedback here.

 

Comments to the Editor

  • This option is included especially because of the supportive nature of the review process. If you have concerns that you don’t feel comfortable expressing as comments for the contributor, you may raise them here. (Though we hope you will do your best to deliver feedback to the author no matter how large the change needed is, as kindly/respectfully as you can.)
  • Please also use this section to indicate if there are areas that you yourself don’t feel confident about. This would help the Editor to know whether we should ask another reviewer to provide input.

 

Recommendation for acceptance

  • It is difficult to give guidance on what distinguishes ‘major’ from ‘minor’ revision. You might think in terms of ‘recommended’ revision instead of ‘required’ to help indicate the extent to which the suggested change is needed. If you are unsure of your judgment, just let the Editor know so that s/he knows to consider this more carefully.
  • The grid at the top of the Reviewer Feedback Form indicates your overall judgment for the contribution as a whole while the Rating boxes provide opportunity to distinguish between points. You are not asked to take any kind of strict numerical/quantitative approach when giving an overall judgment. Instead we urge you to step back and make a more holistic global judgment. 

 

Reviewer Feedback Form

Reviewer Name:

Title:

Please indicate whether or not you would recommend acceptance.

  • Major revision required

 
  • Minor revision required

 
  • No revision needed

 

 

Criteria

Rating

Comments
 

4

3

2

1

  

Innovation and/or impact

  • Does the work provide new knowledge, insights and/or understanding of language education?

and/or

  • Does it hold potential for considerable impact in the language education community?
          

Scholarship of teaching and learning

  • Does the work relate directly to teaching and learning?
  • Is the work embedded and/or clearly compatible with language education research and/or theory?

(Please refer to About Scholarship)

          

Presentation

  • Is the work presented clearly and at a professional level ready for publication?
  • Are the expected conventions for the type of submission adhered to (e.g. citation, appropriate acknowledgement, etc.)
          

Particulars of Category 

  • Does the work meet all other expectations of the category not covered by the above Criteria?

(Please refer to Guiding Questions)

          

Any Overall Comments for the Contributors, not covered by the above

 

Click here to enter comments on content and structure. These may relate to the criteria above, or other issues pertaining to this paper. If you have put ‘sometimes’ or ‘no’ above, please add a constructive comment to help the author improve their paper. 

Comments to the Editor

 

Click here to enter a comment which is for the Editors only. All comments in this box will be removed before the review is sent to the author.