RCR submissions will be accepted on an ongoing basis (see call for submissions). Shortly after each deadline passes, each submission is assigned to an action editor. The action editor will assign a set of submissions to reviewers and will schedule a videoconference review meeting approximately one month later. The intention of having a specific date for the review meeting is to keep the process timely and to resolve any disagreements among reviewers interactively.

Each type of submission has a related review rubric (see instructions for authors). Prior to the meeting, reviewers complete their review based on the rubric. This initial review is intended to provide a starting point for conversation, along with each reviewer’s notes about suggested revisions.

All peer reviewers come to the videoconference prepared with their substantive input for discussion and decision-making. Multiple submissions will be considered by the panel at each review meeting. A consensus editorial recommendation will be captured at the meeting, and thereafter communicated back to the authors by the action editor.

The review and revision process for an RCR is geared towards being able to go from first submission to online publication in approximately six-nine months. If the decision from a videoconference panel is “accept” or “minor revisions” the action editor works with author to finalize the contribution, without further panel review. If the decision is “major revisions,” than a further review, following a subsequent deadline, will be required.

While journals privilege a written review tradition, scholarly work also has a tradition of oral reviews. For example, both the presentation component of a dissertation defense and peer review panels for research proposals rely heavily on documented oral reviews.

If you would like to serve as a reviewer for the RCR series, have questions, or want to provide feedback on the series or process, please contact the committee.