Peer-Reviews

Instructions for Writing Blind Peer Reviews

Peer reviews have dual purposes.

First, they guide the editors in assessing the quality and accomplishment of a submitted manuscript.

Second, by giving a sympathetic analysis of a submitted manuscript, they can offer suggestions that will help an author write the best possible version of the article the author intends to write. Please refrain from taking the opportunity to suggest the article or argument that you would have written on this topic.

The following questions are provided to guide you in composing a 1 to 2 page peer review that addresses both purposes. Your edited review will be shared anonymously with the author.

Please respond as though to the author. Feel free to direct any additional comments to the editorial team in a separate document.

Sometimes an edited copy of the author’s manuscript with inserted comments can be helpful for the editorial team, and or for the author. (Please indicate the intended audience). But please be sure to include a separate document that addresses the following questions.

  1. Focus and Argument.
    What do you understand to be the focus and argument of the manuscript? Does the author state them clearly? Are they substantial enough to ground a sustained presentation yielding significant insights? Are the conclusions accessible to a wide range of teachers of theology and religion, not only to those who teach a particular course in a particular setting?
  2. Analytical Leverage.
    What scholarship did the author use to gain analytical leverage, conceptual purchase, or theoretical perspective for the article? Did the author use the concepts, methodologies or theory accurately and appropriately, and employ them effectively in moving toward the goals of the article?
  3. Organization and Development.
    Is the argument of the article effectively organized and well developed? Does the author critically evaluate her/his own argument? Consider potential counter arguments appropriately? Show awareness of her/his own assumptions?
  4. Scholarship of Teaching.
    Does the author connect the project to a larger conversation in the scholarship of teaching and learning in theology and religion, or the scholarship of teaching generally? Are there articles in TTR or another publication with which the author should be in conversation? Does the article contribute useful ideas, interpretations, or conclusions that extend a previous conversation in the field or potentially initiate a new conversation? Does the article contribute significantly to the discourse about teaching and learning in theology and religion in higher education?

It would also be helpful if you suggested 3 or 4 key words or short phrases that in your opinion this article is really about. 

Thomas Pearson
Editor, Teaching Theology and Religion
Associate Director, Wabash Center
(pearsont@wabash.edu)
800-655-7117