Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Overview

Compass is a peer-reviewed journal that welcomes articles, case studies, technology reviews and opinion pieces relating to learning, teaching and assessment within higher education. It is our aim that Compass will inspire, educate, amuse, and generally engage its readership.

Why you might like to contribute:

  • to raise your professional profile by outlining a case study or writing up your experiences of innovative and effective teaching or student support;
  • to share knowledge and good practice;
  • to raise awareness of a particular methodology;
  • to exercise your research and writing skills, potentially providing a springboard to publication in specialist or other peer-reviewed journals.

We publish these kinds of writing:

Opinion Pieces - short and thought provoking, stating a position and drawing on facts and evidence to support it (a maximum of 1000 words, with around 3 references).

Case Studies - based on learning or teaching in practice, typically describing: the organisational and historical context, technical specifications of the project, discussion of pedagogy, implementation, evaluation and limitations (a maximum of 3000 words).

Research Articles - longer papers, providing a clear rationale for the study within the body of published research, an overview of the research methodology adopted, a presentation of findings, and a discussion of those findings in relation to existing knowledge (a maximum of 6000 words).

Book Reviews – a critical overview of a book related to learning and teaching (a maximum of 750 words).

Technology Reviews – a critique or review of a technology application, outlining its application for learning and teaching and its strengths and weaknesses (a maximum of 1000 words, with around 3 references).

Conference Reflection – this submission should be linked to the University of Greenwich annual conferences SHIFT/APT. The content of the reflection should be linked to the author's experience of the conference  (around 1000 words).

All submissions should include a short biography (no more than 50 -100 words) for each author, written in the third person. Case Study and Research Articles should also include an abstract (no more than 150 words).

There are no author charges for publication

 

Section Policies

Opinion Pieces

Editors
  • Gillian Keyms
  • Danielle Tran
  • Simon Walker
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Studies

Editors
  • Gillian Keyms
  • Danielle Tran
  • Simon Walker
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Articles

Editors
  • Gillian Keyms
  • Danielle Tran
  • Simon Walker
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Overview articles

Editors
  • Danielle Tran
  • Simon Walker
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Conference Reflection Pieces

Editors
  • Danielle Tran
  • Simon Walker
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Technology Reviews

Editors
  • Gillian Keyms
  • Danielle Tran
  • Simon Walker
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

Editors
  • Gillian Keyms
  • Danielle Tran
  • Simon Walker
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy

All submissions are peer reviewed. Submissions will be peer reviewed anonymously by at least two referees on the basis of relevance to the journal themes, quality of submission and interest to the intended audience. Authors will receive feedback and comments following this process and may be asked to amend their work accordingly. The editors reserve the right to make further minor editorial changes. Final proofs will be issued to authors for approval prior to publication and reivew of these must be completed by the stipuated deadline.

For any further guidance or information about the journal please contact ed@gre.ac.uk.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Authors are free to deposit their work in their institutional repositories but must clearly acknowledge Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching as the publisher.

 

Notice for Reviewers and Editorial Board Members

Reviewers names are included only in the issue for which they helped to review submissions for. Names of Editorial Board members who do not attend two board meetings in a row will be removed from the list of Editorial Board members until their next attendance. Online participation at board meetings via Skype can be accommodated. Board members wishing to step down must inform the journal Editor.

Guidance for new reviewers can be found here.

 

COMPASS: Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

COMPASS: Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Edward Phillips (Law School)

(What follows below is drawn extensively from the work and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE : http://publicationethics.org/) These have been adapted, and added to, to suit the needs of COMPASS)

Rationale: The quality of any journal is enhanced by the role played by peer review. Reviewers play an essential role in ensuring integrity, maintaining quality standards and ensuring that the articles contained in the journal conform to the core editorial aims and policies. Consequently, it is clear that reviewers perform a crucial critical and evaluative role. It is also the case that peer review is central to the question of the selection of articles for publication. At the same time, the editorial board relies on reviewers to exercise their judgment in a manner than conforms to standards of integrity and academic scholarship. To put it another way, the editorial board part-delegates its responsibilities to reviewers. It is, therefore, essential that reviewers are (a) provided with guidance, and (b) made aware of their ethical obligations, both to the journal as well as to the authors of the articles that are the subject of review. On the other hand, any guidelines should not be so onerous that they act as a disincentive, which discourages potential reviewers from taking on the role.

Basic principles

Peer reviewers should:

1. Only agree to review manuscripts if they are confident of possessing the required subject expertise and can do so in a timely manner.

2. Respect the confidentiality of the review process and not reveal any details of any manuscript, during or after the review process.

3. Not use any information obtained during the review process for their own advantage without first consulting the Editor.

4. Declare any conflict of interest and to seek advice from the Editor in case of doubt (including where the reviewer is preparing work which is similar in content)

5. Not allow their views to be influenced by the author’s personal characteristics (including race, nationality, religion, gender, political beliefs), or any other factor that involves prejudice or discrimination.

6. Be objective and constructive and to avoid from hostile, defamatory or derogatory personal comments.

7. Bear in mind that there is an expectation from the Editorial Board that reviewers should conform to those academic and scholarly standards expected of academic colleagues.

 

 

Expectations:

Reviewers should:

1.  Respond to requests by the Editor in a timely manner.

2.  Declare any doubts regarding their expertise to review the manuscript as well as any conflict of interests

3.  Decline to review if they feel unable, for any reason, to provide a fair an unbiased review

4.  Adhere to the journal’s review policies and procedures.

5.  Notify the Editor as soon as possible if they have concerns about any ethical aspects of the manuscripts, including plagiarism. The range of ethical aspects may be wide and the reviewers should seek the guidance of the Editor. Any apprehensions should remain confidential.

6. Ensure that the review is based on the merits of the manuscript and not influenced, either negatively or positively by any conflicting considerations or by an intellectual bias.

7. Not contact the author(s) of the manuscript without the direct consent of the Editor.

 

Preparing the review:

Reviewers should:

1. Bear in mind that the Editor relies on the reviewer for subject knowledge, good judgement and a fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

2. Adhere to the journal’s procedures for submission of the review.

3. Be objective and constructive in the preparation of the review.

4. Where criticism is warranted, to be specific and provide evidence, with appropriate references, in a form that will assist the Editor as well as the author.

5. In those situations where the reviewer is of the opinion that the manuscript would benefit from additional or further work, to be specific with regard to those matters that would strengthen and extend the content of the manuscript.

6. Remember that it is the author’s manuscript and not to attempt to re-write it in accordance with the reviewer’s own views and opinions.

7. Bear in mind that the process of the review can be an essential element that is drawn upon by the author in strengthening the manuscript. In doing so, reviewers contribute to a joint academic endeavour to ensure the integrity and quality of what is published in the journal.