Academic Exchange Quarterly Reviewers
  • evaluate the literature that describes academic culture and academic accomplishments
  • contribute to the professional development of another educator
  • make a connection and influence the quality of teaching and learning
Requesting submission for review
  • Academic Exchange Quarterly adheres to a policy of double-blind peer reviews of all articles submitted for publication. Hence, identity of the author is hidden from the reviewer and identity of the reviewer is hidden from the author. Plus, identity of one reviewer is never revealed to another reviewer.
  • To ensure quality of reviews and uniformity among reviewers, the journal asks each reviewer to make appropriate comments within the body of an article and to respond to the Rating Table guidelines at the end of each article.

RATING TABLE   Scoring from 1 to 5: 
1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=disagree, 4=strongly disagree, 5=n/a - not applicable

Submission Number  ........................
Submission title  .....................................................
Confidentiality notice: These reviews (and any correspondence from Academic Exchange Quarterly) 
are for the sole use of the author(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.  
Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
A:  Manuscript deals with a significant problem/issue --  
B:  Abstract summarizes important elements of the paper --
C:  Introduction  states paper's purpose, thesis -- 
D:  Author included  appropriate background or literature review -- 
E:  Author's writing style is academic and clear*-- 
F:  Study is conceptually based and theoretically grounded --  
G:  Analyses are sound and appropriate --  
H:  Conclusion flows logically from the study --  
I:  Readers of AEQ will find this article  of interest --  

Reviewer’s comments and recommendations .................................
Reviewer's  3-letter identity  .............

    * To make the Copy Editor's work easier, we expect you to pay attention to: grammatical errors, sentence construction, pronoun references, and subject/verb agreement.
  • However, while reviewing, if you're feeling frustrated and stressed out, you're probably writing the paper yourself instead of reviewing! So beware, and use your good judgment.
  • For sample reviews, see below entry no.4: unacceptable review and acceptable review. Failure to adhere to guidelines will be cause for dismissal (without any prior warning) from the AEQ Editorial Staff.
  • Please, offer your rating and comments at the end of the manuscript in the format as in the above RATING TABLE
Manuscript Reviewing Guidelines
Reviewing manuscripts is an important yet unheralded job. Since all reviews are "blind," the author will not know whom to thank for the time and suggestions offered. The readers and consumers of published articles will not cite the reviewer nor thank him/her when a published article is helpful. In short, reviewing appears to be a thankless job. However, reviewers are intrinsically motivated and rewarded. They accept the importance of the duty and the significance of evaluating the literature that describes our culture and our accomplishments.
  1. All work is voluntary. No formal compensation is given. However, we do offer five incentive remuneration options.
  2. You must have PhD or EdD or show other competency...
  3. See four samples of Unacceptable Review (no credit given)   and   Acceptable Review (credit given)
    Unacceptable           one              Acceptable
    Unacceptable           two              Acceptable
    Unacceptable           three           Acceptable
    Unacceptable           four             Acceptable
  4. No credit will be given for late reviews or one void of Rating Table and/or author helpful suggestions and comments. For example, the following flat statements, on its own, are not author helpful
    • The paper identifies a problem but does not address solutions adequately.
    • I am not sure this paper adds much to the literature.
    • Poorly written.
    Also, no credit will be given when two other reviewers contradict one reviewer's flat statement similar to these...
    • It is well written.
    • A knowledgeable article.
    • This paper is an interesting account of the subject.
    • I recommend to publish it as it is.
  5. You are not required to do any review sent to you, requested or not. Just return it "not interested." However, when you request yourself and we record on track-your-submission, authors expect you to complete it within 3 weeks.
  6. Feature Editor may decide the review outcome when there is a disagreement between two reviewers. See up-to-date- listing of Feature Editors under Current & upcoming
  7. To remain AEQ active Reviewer, you are expected to do at least twelve reviews a year.
  8. Reviewer identity is confidential and the name of reviewer is never revealed to authors. Moreover, the reviewer’s name is not listed in the journal unless requested otherwise by the reviewer. Why?
  9. Read..... AEQ reviewers: What they do & Why they remain anonymous & Why extra shield
  10. Thanks for selecting Academic Exchange Quarterly for your professional needs.
March 2013