Writing successfully for the Journal of Geography in Higher Education

Figures & data

Table 1. JGHE peer reviewer's checklist.

1. Is the paper relevant to teaching Geography in Higher Education?

2. Does it generalize course and institution-specific material, where possible, for an international audience?

3. Does it clarify local terms and jargon and does it avoid superficial local detail?

4. If appropriate, does it contain practical information to guide others?

5. If appropriate, has the learning and teaching strategy been evaluated (learner evaluations)? (Please note: this criterion is considered very important).

6. Is the paper clearly written? (However, please note: the JGHE is concerned to expand the geographical reach of the journal, which means fostering an increased tolerance to English Second Language contributions and to the concerns and styles of less familiar educational traditions from Europe, CIS, the Developing World, etc.).

7. Is the text shaped by an awareness of equal opportunity (race, gender, age, etc.) issues?

8. Finally, does the paper demonstrate a scholarly awareness of previous work both within geographical education and within the larger arena of educational research?

Table 2. Responding to workshop-based peer reviewer comments.

Peer reviewer's comments	Author's response
Better grounding in educational theory	This revised paper is now embedded in the theory and literature of that worthy part of Education Development that focuses on the improvement of academic writing, among other academic literacies. The list of references is greatly expanded and so is the introductory section. The sources mentioned by reviewers have been scanned and, where appropriate, included.
Better structural balance between introduction and conclusion	This is achieved by the addition of an abstract that outlines the paper's ‘10 golden ground rules’ and an expanded introduction that gives more detailed and explicit guidance about the aims and purpose of this article.
Equal opportunity issues	Part of the purpose of this paper, which may be read by new peer reviewers and as well as would-be authors, is to set out the JGHE's aim to foster both new authors and those struggling to communicate in English as a second language. These are this article's main equal opportunity goals.
More learner-centred	Hopefully, revisions to the guidance about the purpose of the paper as well as more explicit statements in text will have alerted the reader to the academic development aspect of this paper. Here, the targeted ‘learners’ are explicitly ‘would-be’ authors and new peer reviewers.
More ‘do's’ as well as ‘don'ts’.	This was a very good point, which the revisions address by sketching out some basic ‘do's’ in the introduction, by hinting that readers should think about developing their teaching through issuing ‘learning invitations’ (Haigh, 2011), and by these last sections that demonstrate a methodology by example. These include this section on responding to peer reviewer comments and the section on title/abstract/keywords that follows.

Table 3. Responding to JGHE peer reviewer comments.

Editor's comments to author	Author's response
The four reviewers' comments provide a wealth of suggestions and references for the author to reflect and build upon to enhance the manuscript. However, there are some areas that need a little more refinement. The author might like to provide further commentary on: 1. The ‘usefulness of sharing’. 2. The rigour of peer review process? 3. The direction of JGHE and the need for Conceptual approaches? Does this manuscript encourage these approaches? (see Reviewer 1) 4. The third-person approach to writing manuscripts, challenged by Reviewers 1 and 4, needs further explanation? 5. The ‘best’ way of evaluating effective learning is through ‘course evaluation’ is challenged by Reviewer 3 and more context and other alternatives need to be provided. Please use these views of the reviewers to enhance your manuscript.	1. A commentary on the Fincher ‘usefulness of sharing’ work has been added to the responding to peer reviewers section. 2. The article already emphasizes the rigour of the peer review process and why it exists. Further comment is included in Table 3. 3. Reviewer 1's comments are discussed in Table 3 and a new clause is added to the main text. 4. The third-person approach is addressed in a new paragraph under ground rule 5 and here in Table 3. Hopefully, readers will reflect less upon this ‘rule’ than the reason it is proposed. 5. This text is corrected and softened.
Reviewer's comments to author	Author's response
Reviewer: 1. This paper was well written, clear, informative and somewhat to my surprise, raised some quite challenging issues about the character and future of JGHE.	The paper is a personal view but it reports JGHE received wisdom.
Despite the author's assurances, there are still spelling and grammatical errors (e.g. swatting/swotting; misplaced apostrophes)….	Reviewed and removed where detected.
There might be value in adding key words such as scholarly writing; scholarship of teaching. Does JGHE need to be in the keyword list?	Done.
One key issue surrounds the entire question of whether the form of writing/publication supported and encouraged in this article is actually useful in the development of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education? In her fascinating work on ‘useful sharing’, Sally Fincher raises interesting questions about this that might be commented on in this article.	Fincher's ideas about ‘Disciplinary Commons’ are discussed.
I query the assertion that Journal of Geography is the most important ‘sister journal’ (and I'm not sure I really like that phrase…) to JGHE. Certainly, its focus now seems to be K-12 whereas JGHE has a clear tertiary focus. Moreover, I question the suggestion that IRGEE is Australian. The journal has its strongest associations with the IGU and now has an international publisher.	The Journal of Geography is the most important journal in the GHE cluster based on citations. Concerning IRGEE, my text is changed to recognize the IGU link.
In several places, the author sets out the ambitions of JGHE. It would be useful to know the source of these understandings or the authority we might continue to attach to them, given that they differ somewhat from the Journal's published mission; to what degree is there an unstated agenda for the journal? Certainly, as a former co-editor, the author can legitimately make some of these more nuanced statements of aim but: do they persist under new Editorship?	The published mission statement is repeated near the start of this text. A current editor has been foremost among those who have used the paper at successive conference “Writing for the JGHE” Workshops. JGHE Editorial policy evolves, largely, through on-going discussion at its regular Editorial Board Meetings.
Given the stated rigours of the Editorial and peer review processes, how do some questionable papers ‘still sneak into the JGHE's pages’?	Peer reviewers and subeditors are a diverse mix of people—some are more effective gatekeepers than others.
One concern I have is about the ‘direction’ of JGHE. The author offers strong support for the ‘applied’ approach. What of more conceptual approaches to GHE? What about the very geographies of HE? What about the ‘critical geographies’ of HE that seem to find their way into (good) journals other than JGHE? Should not JGHE—and this paper on writing successfully for JGHE—be encouraging this kind of approach as well?—The argument in ground rule 2 (‘say something useful’) also needs to be revised. The general point is good, but as suggested above, what is useful need not be something that can be used in a scholar's own work or can be/is replicated. Surely, ‘big picture’ papers need to be encouraged?	The text has been modified to address this comment. However, the JGHE is about the enhancement of learning and teaching in Geography in Higher Education. “Big picture” papers that deal with this topic are welcome. Equally, the JGHE selectively publishes other kinds of critical commentaries, especially as Editorials, but the practical problems of Teaching and Learning remain the main focus.
The author should refer to some of the literature that queries the effectiveness of journal peer review processes—perhaps starting with Campanario (1998).	Reference to Campanario (1998) and some others have been added.
The claim that, in the case of two reviewers evaluating a paper for another journal, a single negative review will lead to rejection is simply incorrect. A good deal depends on the editor's discretion and evaluation of the reviews.	Text revised to read ‘may be rejected’.
In ground rule 5, the author suggests that ‘in principle’ papers should be written in the third person. This is a flawed argument. First-person writing need not deny any emphasis on learners. Likewise, writing in the third person does not mean learning is given greater attention.	When a teacher speaks only for their self, in the first person, then that individual is certainly not thinking of their learners. Discussion of this issue has been expanded into a new paragraph.
Reviewer: 2 I find this manuscript to well written and to the point. I learned a great deal that will help guide me in my interaction with manuscripts submitted to JGHE. I have no substantial suggestions for change and would think that this manuscript would be of great help to anyone wishing to submit to the journal.	Many thanks!
Continued
Reviewer: 3 This paper is clearly the product of an experienced author and has benefitted from multiple prior readers and reviewers. I appreciate its candour and straightforward messages. Its messages are clear and important and it will be helpful to have it published.	Ditto!
General comments: (1) The style is still more informal than would normally be suitable for a JGHE publication. Its length could be reduced by 10–20 per cent, without any negative impact. Given its purpose, this is probably not a necessary thing to do, but as a ‘model’ for JGHE articles, it falls a bit short—or rather, falls a bit long—in this area. The informality does lend to its readability.	The text has been further revised to reduce its informality while retaining any ‘readability’.
(2) In the section on ‘Listening to the Learners’, I appreciate the fourth paragraph that uses the Fink ideas. However, the statement that the ‘best’ way of evaluating effective learning is through ‘course evaluation’ is often simply wrong. ‘Course evaluation’ can be a rote exercise yielding worthless information. There are many ways to measure learning besides course evaluation and the JGHE would welcome articles that assess geographical learning using any of the valid ways that exist.	Agreed. The relevant paragraph in the main text has been adjusted.
(3) The author states that the main JGHE readership is a group whose native language is English. Therefore, it is appropriate to give some additional, friendly advice to potential authors who are not native speakers of English. Too frequently, papers are rejected because it is too complicated for the reviewers to evaluate the content amidst the language/writing issues. Non-native speakers of English are advised to have their papers read over by a native speaker ahead of submission…. [The reviewer emphasizes this by their next point and several subsequent queries]. (4) I found it difficult to overlook stylistic punctuation conventions that vary between British and American English.	The recommendation that non-native speakers should have their work read by a native speaker ahead of submission is added to the main text under ground rule 7. Of course, English is an international language and there are many, equally valid, variants. Style, in this case, is in the control of the publisher. Concerning ‘(4)’ 11 minor corrections have been made at points in the text signalled by this reviewer.
Reviewer: 4: Comments to the author An innovative paper that hits many significant developmental marks. As an author, I would find this useful, perhaps it would be better placed as a free download to interested authors who would be encouraged to read this first. Extremely helpful is the suggestion about abstract structure but I disagree with the contention about the use of third person since sound pedagogy should be based on learner's (including teachers) reflection.	The issue about the use of third person is discussed in a new paragraph, which covers issues of reflexivity.
Footnote 1 needs to be in the main body of text or expunged.	The main text of the author's favourite cautionary guide to footnotes reads “It.1” For the same purpose, this footnote is retained.

Haigh , M. 2011 . Invitational education: Theory, research and practice . Journal of Geography in Higher Education , 35 ( 2 ) : 299 – 309 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Campanario , J. M. 1998 . Peer review for journals as it stands today . Science Communication , 19 pp. 181–211 & 277–306

 Google Scholar