Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement

Reviewer Guidelines

The following are components of our review form. Potential reviews should use this information to familiarize themselves with the JHEOE review process and potential authors should use this to guide their writing. Please note that there is also space on the review form to leave comments to the authors and private comments to the journal editors.

___________________________________

Research Article Reviewer Guidelines

The following are components of the research article review form:

Research Articles are quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method studies that demonstrate the long-term impact of a university-community engagement project on the community, students, faculty and staff, or the institution.

Research Articles should

  • Outline the overall concept of the study.
  • Provide a thorough literature review that is timely and relevant to the study.
  • Give a clear statement about what gap in the literature the current study is addressing.
  • Outline the methods used in the study.
    • Indicate that Institutional Review Board (IRB) human subjects approval was secured, if applicable (or explain why it was not required).
  • Provide robust sections that report the findings of the study and discuss their implications.
  • Include a section with the limitations of the study and areas for future research.
  • Provide conclusions that address
    • the gap in the literature that the study addressed;
    • best practices or lessons learned that the reader can apply to her/his context; and/or
    • how the conclusions demonstrate impact.

Overall Impression of the Article

Does the article meet the expectations set in the description above? Does the article include all relevant sections, including a thorough literature review, a clear methods section, and findings and implications relevant to the field?*

  • No/Not applicable
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

Literature Review

Has the author provided a thorough literature review that considers current research on the topic and identifies a gap in the literature that this study intends to address?*

  • No/Not applicable
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

Research Methods

 Are the methods used in the study appropriate to the questions being asked? Have the methods of the study been described in sufficient detail? Has IRB human subjects approval been secured, if applicable?*

  • No/Not applicable
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

Findings, Implications, and Conclusions

 Are the findings of the study clearly reported? Does the article consider the implications of the findings, acknowledge limitations in the study, and imagine areas of future research? *

  • No/Not applicable
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

Writing Style, Readability, and Flow

Is the manuscript easy to follow? Does the writing contribute to the expression of the study? Does the author clearly and effectively communicate the content of the article?*

  • No
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

___________________________________

Projects with Promise Reviewer Guidelines

The following are components of the projects with promise review form:

The Project with Promise category is designed for descriptions of early-stage university-community engagement projects with early indications of impact; plans for long-term evaluation; plans for how the project will be sustained; and best practices or lessons learned for the reader. The goal of a project with promise article is a cogent, concise, clear description that outlines initial steps to measure impact, and that outlines plans for a rigorous long-term study of impact.

Project with Promise Articles should

  • Set the context: Describe the university. Describe the community and its identified need. Why did the institution and the community decide to partner? What relevant literature specifically speaks to the problem/issue/need that is being addressed? In this section, provide just one or two sentences to overview the project: What exactly are the goals of the project? For the community? For the university students (if applicable, e.g., participating in a service-learning course or community service project)? For the university faculty members (if applicable)? For the institution overall (if applicable)?
  • Provide details about the project: What faculty expertise is being applied to the project/issue/need? What exactly does the project do? How long has the project been in place? How many have participated in the project? Why and how are university students involved in the project (if applicable)?
  • Measure the impact of the project: What initial steps are being taken to measure the impact of the project? What is the connection of the author(s) to the project and to the measurement of impact? Was IRB approval secured? If not, why not?
  • Present findings What was being measured/assessed? What was discovered? This should be organized parallel to the outlined goals of the project if possible.
  • Discuss the implications of the early-stage assessment: How will the findings be used for this specific project?
  • Outline next steps: What are the implications of the early-stage measurement findings for the project? How will the findings be used to improve the project? How will the project be sustained over time? Outline the assessment being put in place to measure long-term outcomes/impacts of the project?
  • Conclude for the reader with lessons learned and/or best practices: What can the reader take away from this description of a project with early-stage findings about the impact of the project? Summarize the practical best practices or lessons learned.

Overall Impression of the Article

Does the article meet the expectations set in the description above? Does the article include all relevant sections, including the context, the project description, measures of impact, and future directions of the project?*

  • No/Not applicable
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

Context/Background

Has the author provided sufficient detail on the background and context of the project? Are all partners (e.g., university and community) and their roles appropriately represented? Are the goals of the project clear?*

  • No/Not applicable
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

Project and Early Impact

Is the project described thoroughly? Is it clear that steps are being taken to measure its early impact? Was IRB approval necessary and secured?*

  • No/Not applicable
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

Next Steps

Is the future of the project explored sufficiently? Did the author explain how early findings will be used to improve the project? Is the project clearly sustainable?*

  • No/Not applicable
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

Writing Style, Readability, and Flow

Is the manuscript easy to follow? Does the writing contribute to the expression of the project? Does the author clearly and effectively communicate the content of the article?*

  • No
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

___________________________________

Reflective Essay Reviewer Guidelines

The following are components of the reflective essay review form:

Reflective essays are thought provoking examinations of current issues related to university-community engagement and are anchored in the literature. They should aim to inspire scholarship and practice focused on long-term impact.

Reflective essays should

  • Convey a point of view that reviewers would judge to make a difference.
  • Be based in the relevant and current literature.
  • Excite the reader sufficiently because of the essay’s innovative and compelling nature, as well as its ability to inspire scholarship and practice focused on long-term impact.
  • Be well-written and provocative.
  • Provide a challenge to the readers of the Journal that will not be ignored.
  • Indicate that Internal Review Board (IRB) human subjects approval was secured if applicable (or explain why it was not required).
  • Contribute new knowledge (advancing a field of study; or providing best practices or lessons-learned).
  • Include a conclusion paragraph that should start with a summation of the key take home message(s) of the article.
  • Not be just a personal reflection about the author’s career in higher education.

Overall Concept for the Essay

Are the questions and/or problems addressed by the essay made clear? Substantive? Relevant to, and important for, the theory and practice of higher education outreach and engagement?*

  • No/Not applicable
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

Literature

Is the essay situated in relevant literatures and previous research, or well-situated in the history of higher education outreach and engagement?*

  • No/Not applicable
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

Conclusion

From the essay, can the reader glean lessons learned and best practices to apply to her/his context? Does the essay lead to new understandings in the field? Does it have the potential to inspire scholarship and practice focused on long-term impact?*

  • No/Not applicable
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

Writing Style, Readability, and Flow

Is the manuscript easy to follow? Does the writing contribute to the expression of the ideas in the essay? Does the author effectively communicate the purpose of the essay?*

  • No
  • Somewhat/Needs improvement
  • Yes
  • Exceptionally well

___________________________________

If you have anyquestions regarding our review process please email us at jheoe@uga.edu