Morten Blomhøj and Paola Valero

Our agenda:

1. The journal NOMAD’s mission, review policy and process

2. Two reviews of a paper

3. Frequent comments in reviews that point to the role of theory in justifications

The role of theory in the justification of research findings

(in NOMAD as an example)

The most important aim of the journal is to stimulate, support and foster Nordic researchers and post-graduate students in mathematics education and to develop mathematics teaching and teacher-education in theory and practise at all levels of the educational system. We hope that Nomad will promote Nordic studies in mathematics education and spread their results both inside and outside the Nordic countries.

The editorial committee strives to attain good contacts with the readers. The editors welcome articles about reports and surveys of research and development works, discussions of basic questions in mathematics education, theoretical analyses and empirical studies.

The mission of NOMAD

NOMAD’s review policy

• A double blind process• Open guidelines• Supportive feedback to author• Sharing reviews among reviewers• Choosing reviewers (internal and

external)• Language support

The review process - from submission to publication

Submission

Acknowledgement acceptance/rejection

Review process

Review reports to editors

6 weeks1 2

Communication with author(s)

Paper to managing editor

Proof2

Manus to print

Publishing

5

Review report to author(s)

n iterations

• Judge the quality of a paper for publication

• Inform the editors on whether the paper is suitable for publication according to the four categories of NOMAD:

(a) Publish the paper as it is(b) Publish after a revision based on the review(c) Encouraging a new version for a new review (d) Rejection

• Provide the author with a feedback on the quality of the paper and concrete suggestions for improving the paper

Purposes of the review process

Two reviews

Raymond’s first submitted manuscript Collaborative and mathematical monitoring moves among student-teachers: A study of group dialogues from problem-solving in geometry

The task:Read one review and try to find comments that address

issues of justificationIf you were an editor, how will these statements help you

in detecting problems in the justifications provided in the paper?

What do we get from reviewers?

• Some general evaluative statements– More detailed– Less detailed

• What’s behind the statements?

• What reviewers suggest authors to do

“There is no clear research “question” (or aim, or focus, or contention)”

What’s behind? • Missing clarity about what is elucidated in the paper.• No clear formulation of a question and no argumentation for the relevance of the study. • Problems on the argumentative structure of the paper.

Suggestions:• Delimit the aim and focus of the paper (in relation to a larger research study)• State (more clearly) what the paper is about• Justify the importance of the research question (in relation to: research, practice in general, personal or social needs, etc).

What’s behind? Missing theoretical foundation for transformation of the overall research interest into the research question and to the object of the actual study.

Suggestions:• Accommodate the formulation of the “question” to what is actually done.• Revisit the consistency among the elements of the paper, especially: the research interest, the question, the theoretical elements, the analysis and the findings. It is fatal, if the problems also involve the design and methods of empirical studies.• Give the paper another direction, if the empirical material allows it.

“What you promise to do in the paper is not what you actually do”

“What do you mean by...?”“Where does x concept come from?”

“The role of theory y in the paper is not clear”

What’s behind?

• Problems in the presentation of theoretical elements of the paper.

•Unclear or missing arguments for why and how (theoretical) concepts

are helpful in relation to the empirical material

• Distinction of different levels of theory and consistency among them

• Problems with concepts as tools

• Problems with frameworks

• Problems with approaches

• Problems with paradigms

Suggestions:• Define your key concepts explicitly• Argue for the importance of the concepts in the

paper• Articulate your concepts with the methodology

and results: Show their application or use• Revisit and critique your concepts

“I cannot see the basis for your conclusions”“There is no sufficient evidence

for your conclusions”What’s behind?• Missing information about how the data emerged or was

constructed• The data presented is not sufficient• The analysis is weak• The analysis does not lead to the presented conclusions• The theory presented does not provide insight into the

data and the analysisSuggestions:• Expand the empirical basis• Connect theory, methodology, analysis and results

How to get the 2,5 ECTS

• Pick a published paper relevant for your own research.

• Present and characterise the paper in detail and describe its relevance for your work.

• Analyse the paper with particular regard to identifying and examining the justification of the research findings.

• Your report (8-12 pages) should be sent to Mogens and Morten before January 20.

1. The paper should explain its problématique: what are the goals?, what is the motivation?, which are the research question(s) and what is the context for the research?

2. Declaration of the research paradigm.

3. Research design and methods should be explained and the coherence in relations to the research questions should be established.

4. Theoretical statements and theses should be explained, argued and made plausible to the reader.

5. In empirical research (examples of) data and results should be presented clearly and strictly separated from their interpretation.

6. The research findings should be related carefully to the research questions and justify explicitly.

Quality criteria for research papers (in NOMAD)

7. The research and its findings should be embedded in existing research literature.

8. The mathematical content should be carefully explained and analyses of teaching situations and students’ work should be related as closely as possible to the mathematical content.

9. The paper should make plausible to reader the relevance of the research to mathematics education.

10. The criteria of relevance for the Nordic scene.

11. Originality. The paper should present something new.

12. The validity of the research should be discussed in the paper.

13. The technical quality of the paper.

Inspired by Dörfler (1993)

Quality criteria for papers in NOMAD