This webpage has recently been updated to provide current information on the process involved in publishing in New Directions for Evaluation.
General Information About NDE Proposals: The best proposals exhibit the following characteristics.
In addition to these general characteristics the Proposal Review Guidelines provide specific requirements that will be considered in the review of the proposal.
Types of Issues: An NDE issue includes between 37,500 and 42,500 words. It consists of a brief editorial introduction and usually of 6 to 8 chapters that address and develop the topic, method, or theme. Inclusion of at least one practical example or application is required. The presentation of original research on evaluation, including a brief description of methods and a presentation of the relevant results, is encouraged. The following list illustrates formats that have been used, though other innovative approaches are encouraged.
Proposal Development and Review: Proposals are developed iteratively through ongoing review, negotiation, and revision. The following are typical steps, though each issue may differ depending on the topic and format.
Common Causes for Revision or Rejection:
- Proposals are submitted in incomplete form. - Chapters lack sufficient detail (abstracts should be 1-2 pages). - The topic is not developed in a manner that relates to broad audience. - An example of how the topic can be used or applied is weak or missing. - The topic does not focus sufficiently on evaluation or make connections to evaluation explicit. - The topic does not provide an original contribution or perspective.
Initial Editorial Review: The NDE Editors-in-Chief (NDE EICs) reviews each proposal. Incomplete proposals or those that do not comply with the Proposal Format will be returned for revision prior to distribution for formal review.
External Peer Review: Once a complete proposal is submitted for formal consideration, the proposal for the entire special issue is peer reviewed by members of our editorial board (see a current NDE issue for a list). Occasionally experts whose work aligns with the focus of the proposed special issue will also peer review the proposal. A complete proposal requires (i) the identification of the guest editors for the special issue, (ii) information about the proposed special issue as a whole, and (iii) those who will be writing articles also have to prepare a 2-3 page summary of their articles. This overall special issue text and the articles summaries are externally peer reviewed.
This external peer review process is rigorous. and clear criteria is used (see Proposal Review Guidelines). Each external reviewer is asked to provide one of three decisions (accept, revise and resubmit, or reject). And then all reviewer recommendations result in one of three decisions by the NDE Editors-in-Chief: accept, revise and resubmit (which can be a major or a minor revision), or reject. Those that receive a “revise and resubmit” decision continue to go through this external peer review process until ultimately an accept or reject decision is made. The ultimate goal is to produce a valuable source for the evaluation field. Prospective guest editors should expect that the review will emphasize constructive critique and collaborative feedback designed to help shape their ideas into a high-quality and influential final publication. For accepted proposals, the Editors-in-Chief will work with the Issue Guest Editors to develop a timeline for submission of the entire special issue.
Internal Peer Review: This review is only done for those that receive an accept decision via the external peer review process. Guest editors for the special issue first work with article authors to ensure that the full articles are of sufficient quality and adhere to journal guidelines. Once Issue Guest Editors feel the issue as a whole is ready, the entire issue and all articles included in the special issue are then peer reviewed by NDE Editors-in-Chief. The NDE Editors-in-Chief review results in one of three decisions for each article: accept, revise and resubmit (which can be a major or a minor revision), or reject. It is possible for articles to be rejected at this point in the process. Those that receive a “revise and resubmit” decision continue to go through this NDE Editors-in-Chief review process until ultimately an accept or reject decision is made.
The internal peer review process is also rigorous. Clear criteria that are used (e.g., does the issue deliver on what was promised during external peer review, do articles cohere with journal formatting requirements, and so on). Because each article receives an accept, revise and resubmit, or reject decision, it is possible that articles are rejected at this phase. Common causes for reject at this phase include things such as: the article is incomplete or lack sufficient detail to be considered high quality and/or useful, the article is not developed in a manner that relates to the broader NDE readership/audience, ideas about how the article topic can be used or applied is weak or missing from the article, the article does not focus sufficiently on evaluation or make connections to evaluation explicit, the article does not provide an original contribution or perspective meaning it does not align with the “new directions” focus of the journal, and so on.
Once Editorial Review Process is complete, the entire issue and accepted articles are transmitted to Wiley Publications via their ScholarOne system. Upon transmission to Wiley Publications, a stipend of $500 is provided to the Issue Guest Editor. In the case of multiple Issue Guest Editors, this $500 stipend is split among all parties.
Questions and Contacts:
Editors-in-Chief, 2023-2025
Bianca Montrosse-Moorhead, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Educational Psychology University of Connecticut 249 Glenbrook Road, U-3064 Storrs, CT 06269 Email: nde@eval.org
Sarah Mason, Ph.D. Director, Center for Research Evaluation The University of Mississippi Center for Research Evaluation 2301 South Lamar Blvd University, MS 38677-1848 Email: nde@eval.org