Guidelines for Chemical Engineering Education (CEE) Reviewers
Papers published in CEE must be of interest to chemical engineering educators. Thus, papers are expected to focus on teaching chemical engineering, ChE curriculum and courses, ChE students and so forth. If the focus is not on ChE education, the paper should be rejected (item 4 on the review form).
The level of the expository material must also be appropriate for the readership, ChE faculty. If most ChE faculty know all the material, the level is too low. If the authors assume knowledge that the majority of ChE faculty do not know, the level is too high. Both of these problems can probably be resolved by rewriting (item 2 or 3 on the review form).
Ideally, papers will be of interest to both experts and non-experts. Although this ideal is often difficult to reach, any suggestions in this vein will be appreciated.
Although CEE publishes a wide variety of papers, they are all expected to be scholarly. Appropriate references (including journal and proceeding papers, books, websites, etc.) should be cited – particularly those in the ChE Education and Engineering Education literature. Papers that are otherwise publishable but do not have sufficient references can be made publishable by addition of appropriate references (usually item 2 on the review form). It is most helpful if reviewers list appropriate additional references.
Compared to the literature, the paper should represent a reasonably significant advance such as results from a new way to teach material, results from a new curriculum, new application, assessment of educational approaches, description and results from new laboratory equipment and so forth. Significant overlap with earlier literature is a reason for rejection (item 5 on the review form).
The writing should communicate clearly without any distractions from poor grammar, incorrect spelling, and poor organization. Figures and tables should be neat, clearly presented and necessary. These problems can usually be fixed by rewriting the paper (item 2 or 3 on the review form).
Very occasionally, papers lack detail and are too short. Please delineate what additional information and details would be useful. The usual problem is excessive length. Please delineate what can be combined, condensed or removed. It is especially helpful if reviewers give their opinion about removing or combining figures and tables. Modest reductions in length can be done without rereview (item 2), but major reductions probably require rereview (item 3).
CEE reviews are normally anonymous and confidential. If the reviewer requests that his/her review not be anonymous, CEE will include the name of the reviewer with the review sent to the authors.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: December 14, 2012