Notes for reviewers
Papers submitted to the ReCALL journal should meet the following criteria for original academic research in the CALL field:
- There should be a clearly-stated topic of investigation, under a suitably academic title, supported by a rationale which relates the investigation to specific areas of research and/or development and/or practice in computer-assisted language learning.
- The topic should be located with regard to other work in CALL and related fields, by means of a literature or state-of-the-art review, which makes it clear what has been learned from the work of others, and what is original about the current investigation.
- There should be a coherent and appropriate method of investigation, in which the nature of actual or potential findings, outcomes or products is clearly indicated. Methods may include theoretical discussion, experimental or ethnographic studies, design or evaluation methodologies, action research, or any other systematic way of generating an outcome to the investigation.
- Where appropriate, there should be evidence, or consideration, of relevant data analysis and its role in indicating, supporting or confirming findings or conclusions. This should indicate whether data is actual or potential, whether analysis is quantitative or qualitative, and whether the investigation is repeatable or replicable.
- Actual or potential conclusions or products should have a relevance to research, development, or practice in CALL beyond the context of the investigation itself.
Reviewers are asked to be as specific as possible in their recommendations and to provide detailed feedback for authors about possible concerns in their papers and suggested improvements. Quality is critically dependent on the ‘dialogue’ between authors and reviewers, mediated through the editorial process, to arrive at papers of recognised international excellence. In an area where topicality shades very easily into journalistic ‘reportage’, it is essential that the highest academic standards are upheld.
Reviewers’ comments are presented anonymously to authors as guidelines typifying probable expert reader reaction. In most cases, the comments will need to be taken into account before the paper is accepted for publication. It is the intention that, even when papers are rejected, the reviewers’ comments may result in greatly improved resubmissions or new submissions, to this or other journals at a later date.
The reviewing system is crucial to the quality of academic journals and, through them, to the status of the discipline as a whole. The anonymity of reviewers makes it a fairly thankless task. All the more reason for the officers of EUROCALL, as well as the Editorial Board, to express their warm appreciation here for the work done by the referees of ReCALL.