The Peer Review Process in Science Education Journals


In this paper, I explore the peer review process in electronic and print science education journals. The topics I address include how to submit manuscripts, criteria for reviews, reviewer qualifications, blind reviews, the qualifications and role of editors and associate editors, time lines, the most common reasons why manuscripts are rejected, writing to the journal audience and, how to interpret letters from editors. I include recommendations for responding to reviewers' comments when revising manuscripts and how to show editors that appropriate changes have been made to a manuscript. I conclude with a discussion of how the review process is a self-regulating mechanism that shapes the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. Anonymous (n.d.). Instructions for authors. International Journal of Science Education. Retrieved August 7, 2001, from 095006393.html

  2. Anonymous (n.d.). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, back page.

  3. Anonymous (n.d.). Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, back page.

  4. Cannon, J. (1999). Guidelines for publishing in the electronic journal of science education. Electronic Journal of Science Education. Retrieved August 7, 2001, from

  5. Henson, K. (2001, June). Writing for professional journals. Phi Delta Kappan, 765-768.

Download references

Author information



Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baker, D. The Peer Review Process in Science Education Journals. Research in Science Education 32, 171–180 (2002).

Download citation

  • blind reviews
  • editor role
  • manuscript submission
  • peer review
  • review criteria
  • reviewer qualifications