Currie Journal of Knowledge

Reviewers

Reviewers

Reviewers are in a unique position to evaluate and provide feedback on content and teaching techniques of professors/lecturers, beyond that of colleagues and students. These include the professors/lecturers’ knowledge of the field, how up to date materials are, the appropriate level of rigour, and contributions to the dissemination of the field’s work and curriculum development.  Tenure & promotion committees can assess the scholarship of teaching and learning through the publication of knowledge modules. 

To these ends, Cascade Journal of Knowledge editorial team employs rigorous:

  • Editorial, double-blind peer-reviews and technical processes to evaluate screencast/video content and delivery for learning, accuracy, novelty and importance, all within the context of the stated Learning Outcomes.
  • Policies and practices to ensure that knowledge disseminated are useful, reliable, current and credible.

Before reviewing please consider the following:

  1. Is the screencast/video you are asked to review within your field of expertise?
  2. Do you have sufficient time to commit to a thorough review and subsequent revision reviews?
  3. Are there any potential conflicts of interest that might prevent you from reviewing the screencast/video?  If so, please contact the Editor to discuss.

The Review Process

All submitted screencast/videos are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, will be peer-reviewed by independent and anonymous expert referees.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate content and delivery for learning, accuracy, novelty and importance, all within the context of the stated Learning Outcomes. 

Reviewers should  divide their reviews into five parts:

  1. Importance of the topic.  A brief statement summarizing the importance of the topic to the body of knowledge for the field.
  2. Major problems with the screencast/video.
  3. Minor problems with the screencast/video.
  4. Final comments.
  5. Recommendation.
    • Accept without any changes.
    • Accept with minor revisions.
    • Accept with major revisions/revise and resubmit. 
    • Reject.