Reviewing Education Research Papers. Mathematical Association of America

why mathematics Education investigate written document. This an nonated bibliography provides information on what mathematics genteelness journal editor in chiefs and reviewers (i.e. referees) savour for in inquiry papers. It was prep bed as a appendix to our talk Wheres the Theorem? Wheres the evidence? An Analysis of Why Math Ed Research Papers Get spurned given at the RUMEC Conference on Research in mathematics Education, sec Bend, Indiana, September 1998. M victimisations of a newly-appointed journal editor regarding the wide flesh of research paradigms utilise in learning today and the circumstance that peer reviews very a lot provide hostile recommendations. scripted by an editor of facts of lifeal Studies in Mathematics . this chapter gives capitulums reviewers are practic every(prenominal)y asked to address. E.g. What was the theoretical modeling? How is this paper cogitate to others? What does it add? Was the selective information gathering doctrinal? Was the analysis separate? Do the conclusions companion? Is this paper potential to interest readers? Of circumscribed interest are quotes taken from true reviews regarding originality (highly valued), usefulness, readability, etc. \n age very general, this bind has some close advice: Resist the come-on to send your hologram to the most prestigious journal. Inquire nearly a journals acceptation rate, backlog, and turnaround time. administer submitting to theme issues (where tilt is less intense). Dont mechanically assume all refereed journals are bust than all nonrefereed journals. bandage to the journals specific origin style (often APA for education journals). Do revise and resubmit - chances of word sense are much greater the minute time round. maculation ostensibly active communication among researchers and practitioners, this paper overly considers how claims are confirm in mathematics education research. It points unwrap that information do not say f or themselves, that the researchers assumptions should be make clear, and there should be a cogitate argument from (both of) these to the conclusions drawn. \nWritten by a former editor of JRME . this chapter discusses criteria useful in evaluating all aspects of the research process (conceptualization and design, question formulation, conduct of the study, data analysis and interpretation of reports, etc.). These include: worthwhileness, coherence, competence, openness, ethics, credibility, as well as originality, conciseness, and connections with existing research. cardinal rejected manuscripts authorized during 1990 by JRST were haphazard selected and analyzed using content analysis. major(ip) reasons for rejection included: ugly research design, sluttishened literature review, and weak discussion/implications. An additive 36 manuscripts were rejected outright by the editor without spill to reviewers for the following reasons: in any case general and not related to sci ence, not research, and the theory al-Qaida was missing.