Review Rating Criteria for Mathematics Teacher Educator

  • Accept:

    • The manuscript provides a connection to the existing knowledge base in mathematics teacher education.
    • The manuscript is grounded in theory and/or on previously published articles.
    • The manuscript provides evidence of the effectiveness of the innovation being described.
    • The manuscript makes explicit the specific new contribution to our knowledge.
    • The manuscript provides sufficient detail to allow for verification, replication in other contexts, or modification by subsequent authors.
    • The manuscript identifies clear and relevant implications for mathematics teacher education.
    • The manuscript needs only minor copyediting, re-organization, additional examples, or additional references.  It is essentially ready for publication.

     Accept with revisions:

    • The manuscript is clearly within the scope of the journal, is generally well written, and has nearly all of the elements listed in the Accept category.
    • The manuscript may be missing one of the elements identified in the Accept category, but the rest of the manuscript is sufficiently robust that it is clear to the editor that the author has the capacity to make the changes.
    • The manuscript may need restructuring, clarification, highlighting/lowlighting particular points, adding a few points, or eliminating a few points, but the core of the article is there.
    • The manuscript needs “editing plus,” but the editor can assess whether the changes have been made without sending it out for review again.

     Revise and resubmit:

    • The manuscript has enough potential to warrant the effort and time of authors, editor, and reviewers to revisit it.  [Note:  “Revise and Resubmit” is not a default rating or a ‘consolation’ evaluation.]
    • The manuscript is not acceptable in its current form as it is missing more than one essential element noted for Accept, but there is a substantial idea that targets a central issue for the MTE audience and the reviewer offers clear and specific suggestions for improvement.  Part, but not all, of the core of the article is there. 
    • It is clear that the author has the potential to successfully revise the manuscript. The weight of what needs to be fixed is doable; it does not need to be an entirely new manuscript. It will need new writing, taking some things out, and/or reframing. As the core gets refined, the manuscript could shift to be outside of the scope of MTE.  Thus, it will change substantially enough that it needs to be reviewed again.
    • Authors with manuscripts in this category will receive a detailed letter from the editor with criteria that must be met before further review.  If the manuscript is resubmitted, it will be resent to one current reviewer and two other reviewers, all of whom will receive the editor’s decision letter with revision criteria. 


    • The manuscript is missing essential elements noted in Accept or the elements are treated weakly. For instance, the paper may lack compelling evidence, may not be appropriate for the audience, or may lack clear implications for mathematics teacher educators.
    • The manuscript may contain a nugget of a good idea, but it needs to be an entirely different paper to fit MTE. There may be multiple possible directions that the manuscript might take when rewritten because the weight of what needs to be fixed is substantial.
    • The manuscript needs to be rewritten substantially, not revised; it needs to be an entirely new manuscript. A revised manuscript could still miss the mark.  Any resubmission stemming from rejection will be treated as a new submission.