Abstract
The goal of the journal review process is to ensure that published manuscripts are of high quality and address important topics. Technical criteria about methodology, rigor, and clarity can impact how a manuscript is reviewed. However, journal reviewers rely on accumulated wisdom about credibility, accuracy, reasonableness, timeliness, and relevance to base their judgment about the appropriateness, desirability, or publishability. The purpose of this study was to explore editorial board members’ experiences in relation to mixed methods research (MMR). Using a MMR design, we explored the extent to which research judgments, skills, and paradigmatic values are diverse among editorial board members for three high-impact early childhood special education journals and how those features interact when reviewers judge research. First, editorial board members were invited to participate in an online survey. Then, editorial board members who volunteered during the survey were individually interviewed. We present the results and discuss how they can inform peer review process.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
