Abstract
At the last Gifted Child Today (GCT) Editorial Board meeting in November, we decided to distribute a manuscript review checklist to our reviewers and those interested in submitting manuscripts to GCT. As our readers are aware, GCT is a peer review journal that uses a double-blind process (e.g., the authors and the reviewers are unaware of who is reviewing the manuscript). The purpose of peer review is to assess the manuscript’s value and suitability for publication in GCT. The process is important because it ensures quality control over what appears in the professional literature. In the case of GCT, we want to make sure that our journal disseminates evidence-based practices to researchers and practitioners. We hope that the following checklist will help both our reviewers and our readers.
Manuscript Review Checklist
Content of Manuscript
Overall
1. Is the topic relevant to GCT? Does the manuscript relate to gifted education and gifted students?
2. Does it offer innovative ideas? How does it add to what readers already know? Does it answer the “so what” question?
3. Does it include examples and/or resources to allow application by gifted education practitioners?
4. Have ethical issues been considered (if relevant)?
5. Is the text shaped by an awareness of equal opportunity issues (race, gender, age, etc.)?
Abstract and Introduction
6. Are the abstract and title related to the manuscript, appropriate, interesting? Is there a structured abstract that summarizes the key information in the manuscript?
7. Does the introduction give enough detail about the context, goals, problems, and/or research questions (if appropriate)?
8. Does it present a sound current evidence base? Is it grounded in theory and research? Are any important findings from previous studies omitted or misrepresented?
9. Do the authors justify the need for the study or the practice? Does it succinctly state what is known and unknown about the topic or practice?
Method (as needed)
10. Are the participants adequately described? Is it clear who the participants were and how they were recruited/selected? Is demographic information given for the participants?
11. If the study is empirical, does it follow quality indicators for the specific research methodology?
12. For educational learning and teaching strategies, is there an evaluation as well as a description?
Results, Discussion, and Conclusions/Recommendations
13. Are the results analyzed, relevant, and probable (as appropriate to the methodology)?
14. Are the limitations discussed (as needed)?
15. Does the discussion follow from the results?
16. Are recommendations justified by the examples/results?
17. Are the conclusions concise and review main points?
18. Are the results or conclusions meaningful to practitioners? Does it contain practical information to guide others? Is it sensitive to special populations?
Other
19. Are there appropriate and relevant references?
20. Are there figures, illustrations, or tables that provide examples for practitioners?
21. Are the tables and figures understandable without reading the manuscript?
Style of Manuscript
22. Is the narrative easy to read and engaging for the audience of practitioners? Did you enjoy reading it?
23. Could you understand the flow and organization of the article?
24. Does the language align with language used in the field of gifted education?
25. Is the author trying to promote a particular approach or point of view? If so, did the author offer supporting evidence and a clear argument for this? Did the author present alternatives approaches or points of view in contrast?
26. Was the writing clear? Is it written clearly with technical terms defined and jargon minimized?
27. Are there major corrections needed with respect to spelling and grammar?
28. Was the manuscript prepared following American Psychological Association (2010) guidelines?