Become Academic Exchange Reviewer

Manuscript Reviewing Guidelines
See listing of available manuscripts. Request submission by number from    Return to the same address in about two weeks. E-mail will be our way to communicate with you.
or Paper
See listing of available manuscripts. Request submission by number from or Academic Exchange Quarterly, P.O. Box 131 Stuyvesant Falls, NY 12174    Give first consideration to submissions identified by initials "pm" in the submission number. Return to the above postal address in about four weeks. Postal mail will be our way to communicate with you.
  • 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. Two examples of assuring anonymity.
    • We would like you to establish a 3-letter identity for yourself which becomes part of manuscript submission number. However, since a discerning author could easily relate one’s initials to the corresponding name, we urge you to choose a 3-letter identity that does not correspond to your initials. To get proper credit, sign your reviews with so chosen initials.
    • This example will depend on the PC-based version of Microsoft Word that you are using:
      -- remove your name from "the user information tab"
      -- for newer versions, go to the “Edit” menu and slide down to “preferences”
      -- for older versions, go to the “Tools” menu then select "options"
      -- click on the user information tab
      -- you should see your name or your institution's, etc
      -- change the user ID to "reviewer" or "anonymous"
      -- enter a letter for the initial
      -- click "ok," that will show up in the tracking.
      You can always change it back to your own name for other tasks and this may be a bit easier than having to have someone change your registry.
    • Windows XP
  • 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. See entry #8 at the bottom of this page. Make sure you know Manuscript Format Requirements, entries #13-21.
    • ELECTRONIC     With the tracking on, you will review and revise the manuscript. Pressing the delete key or backspace key will preserve the integrity of the author’s original text while allowing you to draw lines through it as you believe is appropriate. Any text or comment that you add will appear in a different color and will thus be clearly distinguished from the author’s text. If you wish to add notes or write questions on the manuscript (the equivalent of writing in the margins), AEQ suggests that you start and end the comment with three asterisks. Example: *** More detail required here, please expand this section ***.
      If the above is not clear, try the following:
      1. Open up the submission, which will be in MS word format.
      2. Click on "Tools"
      3. Click on "Track Changes"
      4. Click on "Highlight Changes"
      5. Click on the box which says, "track changes while editing"
      6. Click also on the other boxes which say, "highlight changes on screen" and "highlight changes in printed document" if they are not already checked
      7. Click on "Okay"
      8. Then any changes, corrections, or comments you wish to embed in the text of the submission will be in color, e.g. red
      9. If the color does not come through, then go back to the box which says, "track changes while editing." Click on "Options." Make sure the color is one you prefer.
    • PAPER     No need to use a computer; instead use a pen for corrections. Use bright ink (red, blue, green, purple, etc.) not black ink or pencil. Write legibly or print. Don't make a correction by writing over a character. Instead, strike through the incorrect character or word and write the correct one directly above it or in the margin close to the relevant strike. Use only one side of the paper.
Rating Table
Submission Number. . . . .
Submission title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quality Statements Strongly
Agree Disagree Strongly
A:  The manuscript deals with a significant problem. 1 2 3 4
B:  The manuscript is creative or deals with the
subject in a new or novel way.
1 2 3 4
C:  The author included the appropriate background
or literature review.
1 2 3 4
D:  The author's writing style is appropriate,
academic, and clear. *
1 2 3 4
E:  The study is conceptually based and theoretically
1 2 3 4
F:  The analyses are sound and appropriate. 1 2 3 4
G:  The conclusions and/or policy implications flow   
from the study's findings.
1 2 3 4
H:  Readers of AEQ will find this article       
of interest.
1 2 3 4
REVIEWER'S NAME:    Do not sign your name. Instead, write your 3-letter identity.
Please, offer your rating and comments at the end of the manuscript in the following format:
Submission Number: 2137-1j
Submission title: A Teaching Note on Social Skills Training
A - 1
B - 4
C - 2
D - 1
E - 3
F - 4
G - 1
H - 2

Reviewer's summary of embedded notes or other suggestions etc...
Reviewer's 3-letter identity

Become Academic Exchange Reviewer
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. Tips and Guidelines for Reviewers
  4. See four samples of Unacceptable Review (no credit given)   and   Acceptable Review (credit given)
    Unacceptable           1           Acceptable
    Unacceptable           2           Acceptable
    Unacceptable           3           Acceptable
    Unacceptable           4           Acceptable
  5. 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.
  6. 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. See, sample feedback from authors
  7. Editors, whose ranking is based solely on the number of reviews, ought to complete the following minimum number of reviews annually:
    • Consulting Editor: 24 reviews
    • Assistant Editor: 36 reviews
    • Associate Editor: 48 reviews
    This averages to 2-3-4 proper reviews each month. Failure to keep up with said average will result in a warning and a second instance shall result in demotion to a lower editorial rank or dismissal from the journal staff.
  8. You are eligible for AEQ Editor's letter of recommendation when you are evaluated for promotion, tenure or post-tenure review of tenured faculty at your college/university.
October 2007