Please begin your report with your recommendation of accept, revise and re-submit, or reject, and a brief, summarizing statement explaining why.

The body of the report should be mainly concerned with presenting your understanding of the essay and offering constructive criticism.

• What is the essay’s topic? Is it relevant and interesting? Does the topic address the journal’s stated interests in pedagogical and professional issues, especially as they pertain to our changing working conditions?
• What argument is the essay making?
• Are the essay’s topic and purpose immediately concerned with usefulness to readers across institutions and non-institutional settings?
• Does the essay identify the scholarly, pedagogical, and/or professional conversation in which it is taking part and represent that conversation correctly and in an up-to-date manner?
• Is the essay clearly written? Is it structured effectively?
• Does the essay stay focused?
• Where could the essay be strengthened? Consider the following:
• Places where the meaning is unclear
• Factual errors
• Places where ideas could be expanded

We strongly urge reviewers to sign their reviews in the interests of fairness. The authors will in many cases be easy to identify. Some authors may want to avail themselves of a strict, double- blind review process, in which case, we will let the reviewers know.

The editors will reserve the right to evaluate whether a reader’s report meets their criteria.