Review of Educational Research
The Review of Educational Research (RER, quarterly, begun in 1931; approximately 640 pp./volume year) publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research unless it is incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented.
The Review of Educational Research publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research, and all analyses should be incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented. The following types of manuscripts fall within the journal’s purview:
Integrative reviews pull together the existing work on an educational topic and work to understand trends in that body of scholarship. In such a review, the author describes how the issue is conceptualized within the literature, how research methods and theories have shaped the outcomes of scholarship, and what the strengths and weaknesses of the literature are. Meta-analyses are of particular interest when they are accompanied by an interpretive framework that takes the article beyond the reporting of effect sizes and the bibliographic outcome of a computer search.
Theoretical reviews should explore how theory shapes research. To the extent that research is cited and interpreted, it is in the service of the specification, explication, and illumination of a theory. Theoretical reviews and integrative reviews have many similarities, but the former are primarily about how a theory is employed to frame research and our understandings, and refer to the research as it relates to the theory.
Methodological reviews are descriptions of research design, methods, and procedures that can be employed in literature reviews or research in general. The articles should highlight the strengths and weaknesses of methodological tools and explore how methods constrain or open up opportunities for learning about educational problems. They should be written in a style that is accessible to researchers in education rather than methodologists.
Historical reviews provide analyses that situate literature in historical contexts. Within these reviews, explanations for educational phenomena are framed within the historical forces that shape language and understanding.
Commissioned reviews and thematic issues. The editors may commission and solicit authors to review areas of literature. In all other respects, commissioned reviews are subject to the same review process as submitted reviews. The editors also encourage readers to propose thematic topics for special issues and, as potential guest editors, to submit plans for such issues.
In addition to review articles, RER will occasionally publish notes and responses which are short pieces of no more than 1,200 words on any topic that would be of use to reviewers of research. Typically, they point out shortcomings and differences in interpretation in RER articles and policy.
The standards and criteria for review articles in RER are the following:
1. Quality of the Literature. Standards used to determine quality of literature in education vary greatly. Any review needs to take into account the quality of the literature and its impact on findings. Authors should attempt to review all relevant literature on a topic (e.g., international literature, cross-disciplinary work, etc.).
2. Quality of Analysis. The review should go beyond description to include analysis and critiques of theories, methods, and conclusions represented in the literature. This analysis should also examine the issue of access—which perspectives are included or excluded in a body of work? Finally, the analysis should be reflexive—how does the scholars’ framework constrain what can be known in this review?
3. Significance of the Topic. The review should seek to inform and/or illuminate questions important to the field of education. While these questions may be broad-based, they should have implications for the educational problems and issues affecting our national and global societies.
4. Impact of the Article. The review should be seen as an important contribution and tool for the many different educators dealing with the educational problems and issues confronting society.
5. Advancement of the Field. The review should validate or inform the knowledge of researchers and guide and improve the quality of their research and scholarship.
6. Style. The review must be well written and conform to style of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition). Authors should avoid the use of unexplained jargon and parochialism.
7. Balance and Fairness. The review should be careful not to misrepresent the positions taken by others, or be disrespectful of contrary positions.
8. Purpose. Any review should be accessible to the broad readership of RER. The purpose of any article should be to connect the particular problem addressed by the researcher(s) to a larger context of education.
| Midred Boveda | The Pennsylvania State University, USA |
| Karly Sarita Ford | The Pennsylvania State University, USA |
| Erica Frankenberg | The Pennsylvania State University, USA |
| Francesca López | The Pennsylvania State University, USA |
| Jessica DeCuir-Gunby | North Carolina State University, USA |
| Sherman Dorn | Arizona State University, USA |
| Marc Guerrero | The Ohio State University, USA |
| Nicol Howard | University of Redlands, USA |
| Hollie Kulago | The Pennsylvania State University, USA |
| Daniel D. Liou | Arizona State University, USA |
| Edna Tan | University of North Carolina, Greensboro, USA |
| Patricia Alexander | University of Maryland, USA |
| Ariel Aloe | The University of Iowa, USA |
| Elizabeth Bettini | Boston University, USA |
| Hilda Borko | Stanford University, USA |
| Gloria Crisp | Oregon State University, USA |
| Dionne Cross | Indiana University Bloomington, USA |
| Paul De Boeck | Ohio State University |
| Eric Dion | University of Quebec in Montreal, Canada |
| Denis Dumas | University of Denver, USA |
| Molly Faulkner-Bond | WestEd, USA |
| Carla Firetto | Arizona State University, USA |
| Emily Fyfe | Indiana University Bloomington, USA |
| Taucia González | University of Arizona, USA |
| Steve Graham | Arizona State University, USA |
| Jeffrey A. Greene | University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA |
| Melissa Gresalfi | Vanderbilt University, USA |
| Megan Hopkins | University of California, San Diego, USA |
| Elizabeth Hughes | Pennsylvania State University, USA |
| Bryant Jensen | Brigham Young University, USA |
| Eric Knuth | University of Texas-Austin, USA |
| Jennifer Langer-Osuna | Stanford University, USA |
| María Ledesma | San Jose State University, USA |
| Douglas Lombardi | University of Maryland at College Park, USA |
| David Lubinski | Vanderbilt University, USA |
| Danny Martin | University of Illinois at Chicago, USA |
| Lucia Mason | University of Padova, Italy |
| Kathryn McDermott | University of Massachusets, Amherst, USA |
| Kelly Mix | University of Maryland, USA |
| Jens Möller | Universität zu Kiel, Germany |
| Chrystalla Mouza | University of Delaware, USA |
| Cynthia Nicol | The University of British Columbia, Canada |
| Becky Packard | Mount Holyoke College, USA |
| Peng Peng | The University of Texas at Austin, USA |
| Terri D. Pigott | Georgia State University, USA |
| Joshua R. Polanin | American Institutes for Research, USA |
| Geetha Ramani | University of Maryland, College Park, USA |
| Bethany Rittle-Johnson | Vanderbilt University, USA |
| Christine M. Rubie-Davies | University of Auckland, New Zealand |
| Lucrecia Santibañez | University of California, Los Angeles, USA |
| Catherine Snow | Harvard University, USA |
| Jon Star | Harvard University, USA |
| Dafina-Lazarus Stewart | Colorado State University, USA |
| Andrei Streke | Mathematica Policy Research, USA |
| David Stroupe | Michigan State University, USA |
| Adai Tefera | University of Arizona, USA |
| Jason Travers | University of Kansas, USA |
| Jan Van Driel | University of Melbourne, Australia |
| Xueli Wang | University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA |
| Daniel B. Willingham | University of Virginia, USA |
| Suzanne M. Wilson | University of Connecticut |
| Tara Yosso | University of California - Riverside, USA |
1. Publication Standards
2. Submission Preparation Checklist
3. How to Get Help With the Quality of English in Your Submission
4. Copyright Information
5. For authors who use figures or other materials for which they do not own copyright
7. SAGE Choice and Open Access
The Review of Educational Research (RER) publishes comprehensive reviews of literature related to education. RER does not publish original empirical research, and all analyses should be incorporated in a broader integrative review. Please check the journal’s Aims and Scope to see if your manuscript is appropriate to submit to RER.
All manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the editorial team at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rer. For questions or inquiries about manuscripts, please contact the editors. Inquiries regarding original manuscripts should be directed to P. Karen Murphy, incoming editor for the 2017-2019 volume years, at REReditors@aera.net. Manuscripts may not be submitted via e-mail.
Researchers who intend to submit studies for publication should consult the Standards for Reporting on Research in AERA Publications adopted by the AERA Council. We also recommend consulting (a) the Guidelines for Reviewers, which outline the criteria under which manuscripts are reviewed for publication by AERA and (b) recent previous editions of the journal. Individuals submitting systematic reviews or meta-analyses should also consult The PRISMA Statement (http://www.prisma-statement.org) as well the article on “Reporting Standards for Research in Psychology” in American Psychologist, 63, 839 – 851 (doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839).
Submission Preparation Checklist
When you upload your initial submission, upload (a) a separate title page that is not blinded with an Author Note based on the 7th edition of the APA Manual, (b) the main manuscript, which includes a BLINDED title page, an abstract with keywords at the bottom, and the rest of the document including tables and figures, and (c) Author Bios.
Please ensure that your manuscript complies with the document “RER Formatting Requirements and Common Formatting Errors." If your submission does not meet these requirements, it will be returned to you. Additionally, your submission should meet the following guidelines:
1. The submission has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; or an explanation has been provided in the Cover Letter. Authors should indicate in the Author Note on the separate title page if sections of the manuscript have been published in other venues.
2. THE MANUSCRIPT CONTAINS NO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, EVEN ON THE BLINDED TITLE PAGE. Please blind any work of limited circulation (e.g., in press papers, manuscripts under submission) that would point to the author, both in the body of the manuscript and the reference list. More information on blinding is described subsequently. Please double check that the author’s name has been removed from the document’s Properties, which in Microsoft Word is found in the File menu(select “File,” “Properties,” “Summary,” and remove the author’s name; select “OK” to save).
3. The text conforms to APA style (currently the 7th ed.). Consult the guidelines spelled out under “Manuscript Style, Length, and Format” on this webpage and in the RER Formatting Requirements document on the website.
4. The submission is in Microsoft Word, which will be converted into a pdf file. Please do not upload PDF files.
5. All URL addresses and dois in the manuscript (e.g., http://www.aera.net) are activated and ready to click.
6. An abstract of no more than 150 words is included (both separately and on the second page of the main document after the BLINDED title page. Please also include three to five keywords, the terms that researchers will use to find your article in indexes and databases.
For further instructions regarding manuscript style, length, and format, please review the RER Submission Guidelines.
How to Get Help With the Quality of English in Your Submission
Authors who would like to refine the use of English in their manuscripts might consider using the services of a professional English-language editing company. We highlight some of these companies at http://www.sagepub.com/journalgateway/engLang.htm.
Please be aware that SAGE has no affiliation with these companies and makes no endorsement of them. An author's use of these services in no way guarantees that his or her submission will ultimately be accepted. Any arrangement an author enters into will be exclusively between the author and the particular company, and any costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the author.
No written or oral permission is necessary to reproduce a table, a figure, or an excerpt of fewer than 500 words from this journal, or to make photocopies for classroom use. Authors are granted permission, without fee, to photocopy their own material or make printouts from the final pdf of their article. Copies must include a full and accurate bibliographic citation and the following credit line: “Copyright [year] by the American Educational Research Association; reproduced with permission from the publisher.” Written permission must be obtained to reproduce or reprint material in circumstances other than those just described. Please direct all requests for permission or for further information on policies and fees to the journal’s Web site at http://rer.aera.net/.
For authors who use figures or other material for which they do not own copyright:
Authors who wish to use material, such as figures or tables, for which they do not own the copyright must obtain written permission from the copyright holder (usually the publisher) and submit it along with their manuscript. (However, no written or oral permission is necessary to reproduce a table, a figure, or an excerpt of fewer than 500 words from an AERA journal.)
The right of reply policy encourages comments on recently published articles in AERA publications. They are, of course, subject to the same editorial review and decision process as articles. If the comment is accepted for publication, the editor shall inform the author of the original article. If the author submits a reply to the comment, the reply is also subject to editorial review and decision. The editor may allot a specific amount of journal space for the comment (ordinarily about 1,500 words) and for the reply (ordinarily about 750 words). The reply may appear in the same issue as the comment or in a later issue (Council, June 1980).
If an article is accepted for publication in an AERA journal that, in the judgment of the editor, has as its main theme or thrust a critique of a specific piece of work or a specific line of work associated with an individual or program of research, then the individual or representative of the research program whose work is critiqued should be notified in advance about the upcoming publication and given the opportunity to reply, ideally in the same issue. The author of the original article should also be notified. Normal guidelines for length and review of the reply and publication of a rejoinder by the original article’s author(s) should be followed. Articles in the format “an open letter to …” may constitute prototypical exemplars of the category defined here, but other formats may well be used, and would be included under the qualifications for response prescribed here (Council, January 2002).
If you or your funder wish your article to be freely available online to nonsubscribers immediately upon publication (gold open access), you can opt for it to be included in SAGE Choice, subject to payment of a publication fee. The manuscript submission and peer review procedure is unchanged. On acceptance of your article, you will be asked to let SAGE know directly if you are choosing SAGE Choice. To check journal eligibility and the publication fee, please visit SAGE Choice. For more information on open access options and compliance at SAGE, including self author archiving deposits (green open access) visit SAGE Publishing Policies on our Journal Author Gateway.