MountainRise

MountainRise welcomes submissions from authors who find the scholarship of teaching & learning to be a foundation and impetus for their continuing professional development as teachers or mentors and who wish to make that scholarship of teaching & learning, like all authentic scholarship, public, open to evaluation and used for further research, reflection and the development of knowledge and wisdom for the benefit of the experience of teaching & learning for faculty and students.

Review Rubrics
At least three members of the Editorial Review Board
will read and critique each submission "blindly," without knowing the name of the author of the submission. Reviewers will critique the submissions according to criteria established in Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate by Glassick, Huber and Maeroff (1997). The authors say that :

The effort to broaden the meaning of scholarship simply cannot succeed until the academy has clear standards for evaluating this wider range of scholarly work. After all, administrators and professors accord full academic value only to work they can confidently judge. in order to recognize discovery, integration, application and teaching as legitimate forms of scholarship, the academy must evaluate them by a set of standards that capture and acknowledge what they share as scholarly acts.

The criteria in Scholarship Assessed that will be used as the basic rubrics for the review of submissions to MountainRise are as follows:

1. Clear goals
Does the scholar state the basic purposes of his or her work clearly?
Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and achievable?
Does the scholar identify important questions in the field?

2. Adequate preparation
Does the scholar show an understanding of existing scholarship in the field?
Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to his or her work?
Does the scholar bring together the resources necessary to move the project forward?

3. Appropriate methods
Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the goals?
Does the scholar apply effectively the methods selected?
Does the scholar modify procedures in response to changing circumstances?

4. Significant results
Does the scholar achieve the goals?
Does the scholar's work add consequentially to the field?
Does the scholar's work open additional areas for further exploration?

5. Effective presentation
Does the scholar use a suitable style and effective organization to
present his or her work? Does the scholar use appropriate forums for
communicating work to its intended audiences?
Does the scholar present his or her message with clarity and integrity?

6. Reflective critique
Does the scholar critically evaluate his or her own work?
Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to his or her critique?
Does the scholar use evaluation to improve the quality of future work?

Review Process
The review process will be as follows:

1. Managing Editor sends the Word or Word Perfect version of the submission (without the name of the author(s)) to three members of the Editorial Review Board.

2. Review Board members will read the submission and write their comments on the electronic review form, based upon the Scholarship Assessed rubrics given above.

3. Each Reviewer will include on the review form 2 - 3 comments for the author of the submission about the content, argumentation, conclusions, etc. If the submission is selected for possible publication, these comments will be given to the author for the purpose of the giving the author an option to review the submission and make potential revisions to strengthen it.

4. Each Reviewer will evaluate the submission according to the following list of options:

Reviewer's Evaluation (check one)

Accept: no revision needed
Accept: minor revisions needed
Major revision needed: revise & resubmit
Reject (provide reasons in comments)
Submission topic not appropriate for MR

5. When all reviews have been received by the editors, a decision will be made regarding publication and authors will be contacted. If the reviews are very different, the managing editor can ask 2 different Editorial Board members to read and evaluate the submission and then, upon receipt of those two additional reviews, a final publication decision will be made by the editors.

MountainRise's purpose is to stimulate thought, collegial dialogue and pedagogical action and experimentation for the benefit of both the faculty and the learning experiences of students. The Editorial Board and its process for reviewing submissions will be flexible to meet the needs and unique interests and experiences of faculty and authors.

Dialogue in Response to Published Submissions
Because a main purpose of MountainRise is to be an agent for dialogue about the profession, art and craft of teaching & learning, readers of the journal are encouraged to send their responses to any work published in MountainRise to the editors.