Guidelines for assessing papers submitted to the eucen EJULL

You have been sent this link because you have been invited to act as reviewer for a paper that has been submitted for the European Journal of ULLL (EJULL). Thank you for accepting this task.

For your information before you start writing your review, please note the three type of papers that the EJULL accepts and what we understand each type should be like:

Research papers drawing on theoretical debates or empirical research, contextualised within current national and international policy debate, which develop the theoretical base of the field or report on empirical research done. Detailed methodology is an important part of this type of papers.  Length: max. 3000-5000 words 
Innovative Practice/Short papers including critical evaluations to share and discuss specific projects or practical approaches that either are in progress or have been completed. Length: max. 2000-3000 words 
Discussion papers presenting an informed opinion or reflection on current research and policy developments on university lifelong learning. Length: max. 1000-2000 words

Please, complete a separated form for each paper that you are going to review. In order for the editors to have a clear understanding of your evaluation of the paper, please fill in all the required sections. The eucen reference code and the type of paper are given in the email that you have received from eucen. Please, also check the email from eucen to confirm the deadline to deliver your review. Thank you for your collaboration.

Your Review

Go back

Your message has been sent

Title of the Paper

eucen Reference code

Type of paper

Please indicate your decision(required)

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED WITH MINOR REVISIONS

REVISE AND RESUBMIT

REJECTED

Outline briefly your reasons for reaching this assessment of the article – this part will NOT be shared with the author(s) or with anyone else but the editors of EJULL.

1. Provide some constructively expressed feedback for the author, in response to the specific questions:

1.a) How clear is the purpose of the paper?

1.b) How well constructed is the argument?

1.c) How well grounded in relevant literature is the paper?

1.d) How well is the method of research described and reflected upon?

1.e) How much does the paper add to knowledge? (e.g. addressing the research gap, adding new perspectives, etc).

2. To what extend will this Research/Innovative Practice/Discussion paper appeal to the diverse journal’s readership (researchers, practitioners, managers…)? Highlight the relevant categories.

3. To what extend are the context, language, expressions and explanations of national/local terms suitable for an international readership?

Any other comments you might have about the current paper.

Name SURNAME or the reviewer.

Email of the reviewer.

Are you sure you have filled in all the sections and included all your feedback in this form? If so, please submit your feedback. Thanks!

Your Review

Your message has been sent

Thank you!

Share this: