Papers are published in TISE on a rolling basis. For this reason, we kindly ask for adherence to requested deadlines and, if for any reason your review must be delayed, please promptly notify the editors so that alternative arrangements can be made, if needed.
Papers are submitted under one of four categories. Reviewers are strongly encouraged to read the description of these categories as provided in the Author Guidelines. The category of submission will affect your review as explained here.
Statistical Investigations (Research papers and Empirical Studies)
If the paper you have been asked to review is a Statistical Investigation paper, we ask that you consider the questions below as a general guide for your review. You need not answer each question; these are meant simply to guide your review. Please also include your general opinion on the suitability for publication and any other thoughts or critiques that might improve the paper. Often, it is helpful to begin your review with your personal overview/summary of the paper and an assessment on its importance. Please comment on any obvious violations of the formatting guidelines.
1. Is the paper a meaningful contribution to statistics education?
2. Does the research question directly involve the use of technology in teaching statistics?
3. Does the literature review address relevant previous studies? Are there glaring omissions?
4. Is the theoretical framework adequate? Is there an alignment between the theoretical framework posed and the research questions?
5. Are the empirical methods suitable and appropriate for the research questions? Are deficiencies or limitations in the research design satisfactorily acknowledged in the paper (perhaps in a Discussion or Summary section)? Note that the use of final grades in a classroom study are usually not considered adequate measurement of learning.
6. Are statistical analyses appropriate to address the research question and for design of the study?
7. Are results clearly presented? Could the presentation be improved with the addition of graphics? Are graphics clearly labeled?
8. Are conclusions appropriate, given the results presented and the research design?
9. Writing Style: is the paper clear and concise? Are there sections that are not needed? Are there sections/paragraphs/sentences that need re-writing?
Statistical Thinking (Position papers)
If the paper you have been asked to review is a Statistical Thinking paper, we ask that you consider the questions below as a general guide for your review. You need not answer each question; these are meant simply to guide your review. Please also include your general opinion on the suitability for publication and any other thoughts or critiques that might improve the paper. Often, it is helpful to begin your review with your personal overview/summary of the paper and an assessment on its importance.
Papers in this section are essentially opinion pieces. As a reviewer, you need not agree with the opinion; we are interested in whether the argument is solid and supported by the research literature.
1) In your opinion, is the issue raised by the paper both timely and interesting? "Interesting" is a very subjective term, so could you please describe your reasoning?
2) Position papers are meant to be advocating a point of view. Can you state the viewpoint the author is advocating? No need to do so, of course, but if you cannot, then this is a bad sign for the paper.
3) Are the arguments the author(s) advanced novel? Are they logical and well-reasoned?
4) If appropriate, are opposing points of view considered and treated with the respect they deserve?
5) Are there any arguments missing that might strengthen the author's point of view? Or weaken it?
6) While a position paper need not have a formal literature review, it should still be placed in a research context. Are sufficient citations provided to ground this position in a modern and current statistics and/or data science education discussion?
7)Would it be interesting to ask others to provide discussion papers? Could you suggest one or two people who might be asked?
8) Are terms defined or explained?
Technology Innovations are usually detailed case studies. The term "innovation" is key. As a reviewer, you'll be asked to put emphasis on whether or not the technology or its implementation is innovative. The questions below are intended as a guideline for your review and need not be strictly adhered to. Please provide any thoughts or criticisms you have that might improve the paper. 1. Innovation is key. Does the paper clearly describe the innovation and why it is innovative? The new technology could very well
be a modification of existing technology or technologies. Does the author make it clear which parts are innovative and which are not? Is the innovation useful? Would you use it or could you imagine a colleague using it?
2. Does the author clearly state the problem (educational, technical, administrative, etc.) that is to be solved by the technology? Do you feel that this is a compelling problem that is in need of a solution?
3. Authors are not required to empirically justify that their innovation is effective. That said, does the paper propose a convincing argument for why the proposed innovation is capable of solving or alleviating the stated problem? Can you suggest ways of strengthening this argument? If empirical evidence is provided, is it compelling? Appropriate?
4. Does the paper make clear the target audience for the innovation? What level of students, what level of preparation? What is assumed about the students' backgrounds? About the teachers'/instructors' background?
5. Has the paper given readers enough information to decide whether this is an implementation that readers would like to adopt?
6. For papers that describe new technologies, does the technology seem to you to be well designed? Can you suggest improvements, or identify features that would be hindrances either for students or instructors? (This might not be applicable to all submissions, of course.) Are you lacking information to make this decision and would such information, if provided, improve the paper?
7. Finally: should it be published? Will it be publishable after your recommendations are made? Is it already publishable (pending minor changes)? Or are there too many open questions, a lack of novelty, or a lack of interest that prevent it from being publishable?
Papers submitted as "Notes" may be of wide variety and are published at the editor's discretion. Typically, they will be reviewed by a single referee. Guidelines for review will be determined by the editor, often with consultation with the editorial board.