DR and HE Indicators

Suggestions of specific indicators for the sections of Didactic Research and History and Epistemology

1. Relevance of the work for the Didactic of Science/Mathematics
• Significance of the problem.
• Justification of the interest of the topic undertaken.
• Originality of either the research or the reflection in a field.
• Delimitation of the problem.
(Note: If the work is not relevant, it is not suitable for publication in the journal)

2. Theoretical foundation and literature review
• Sufficiency of the justification of the theoretical framework.
• Adequacy of the problem definition of the problem and its relationship to prior work.
• Clear definition of the objectives of the research.
• Specificity of the literature (as opposed to very general references).
• Pertinence, timeliness and completeness of the literature (without superfluous quotes).
• Consideration of prior work published at Enseñanza de las Ciencias.
• Correction in the wording of citations (in the main text and in the final list).
• Quality of the literature review in relation to the topic at focus.

3. Methods and results
• Coherence between the design and the research problem.
• Adequacy of the subjects. Specification of criteria of selection and features.
• Adequacy of techniques for data collection. Specification of criteria and features.
• Adequacy of methods for data analysis to the research problem.
• Clarity in the communication of data (use of tables, figures, illustrations...).

4. Interpretations and conclusions
• Rigor, pertinence and originality of the data analysis.
• Adequacy of the interpretation and discussion of data, in relation to those confirming the thesis and those introducing objections.
• Clarity and pertinence in the relationships between claims and data.
• Quality of the conclusions with respect to mathematics or science teaching.
• Connection with the theoretical framework.

5. Writing
• Adequacy of the title to the content of the work.
• Pertinence of the abstract and keywords.
• Coherence between the arguments in the introduction and in the conclusions (these two parts together should provide an overview of the contributions of the work).
• Clarity, intelligibility and correction of the written text.
• Adjustment of the publication to the journal extension rules.

Writing the report

It is recommended a demanding analysis and evaluation of the original papers while, at the same time and if possible, a constructive guidance for improvement.
The evaluation must be accompanied by a one or two-page written report with the following claims:

A. Recommendation in relation to publication
• Publishable without modifications.
• Publishable with minor modifications.
• Only publishable after substantial modifications.
• Rejection for lack of adequacy to the journal.

In case of recommending publication, a section needs to be indicated: research, history and epistemology.

B. Justification of the report. The evaluation must be written so that it can be sent directly to authors, specifying the reasons of the final recommendation and blinding the reviewer name.

Some reference should be made to the suggested indicators above or to alternative criteria which are considered pertinent, eventually with ideas and references for improvement.

The report submission is to be completed within one month (it is important not to exceed this timeline) through the journal platform (ensciencias.uab.es).

Questions and suggestions: r.ensenanza.ciencias@uab.es